To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed the entire object, paste this HTML in websiteTo link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed this page, paste this HTML in website

North Carolina
DataNet June 2000 Issue # 25
Historical Perspectives on NC Politics
!
Thad Beyle, editor
( beyle@ email. unc. edu)
Jennifer Drolet,
managing editor
( jdrolet@ irss. unc. edu)
!
North Carolina DataNet is
a quarterly newsletter
published by the
Odum Institute
for Research in
Social Science,
University of North Carolina
at Chapel Hill.
!
To join our mailing list, please
contact Thad Beyle, Dept. of
Political Science, CB # 3265,
University of North Carolina,
Chapel Hill, NC, 27599- 3265.
!
850 copies of this public document
were printed at a cost of $ 475.
NC DataNet
June 2000
Issue # 25
Turnout in NC's Gubernatorial Primaries
Ferrel Guillory ( UNC- CH Program on Media, Southern Politics
and Public Life, School of Journalism and Mass Communications)
Despite competitive races in both the Democratic and Republican parties, North
Carolina’s gubernatorial primaries brought forth wails of lament over “ all- time low’’
voter turnout. Indeed, the turnout was very low, but that’s not the whole story. The ac-companying
table “ First Primary Turnout as a Measure of Party Strength” ( page 2)
points to several trends that form a more nearly complete picture.
As North Carolina has become increasingly a state of two- party competition
since 1972, there has been a steady drop in turnout ( i. e., total vote as a percentage of
registered voters), in party primaries for governor and U. S. senator. During much of the
twentieth century, when North Carolina was a one- party state, the battle for the gover-nor’s
mansion took place within the Democratic Party. Turnout was relatively high in
the primaries, because citizens who wanted to help decide who became governor knew
that they had to take part in the Democratic primary. Now, more than twice as many
voters cast ballots in the general election as in party primaries.
In total voters who show up to cast ballots, Democratic Party turnout still exceeds
GOP turnout. But Republican Party participation has expanded since the early ’ 70s.
Republican vote- count hit a peak in 2000, though it still fell more than a quarter of a
million votes below the Democratic total. Democratic primary votes peaked in 1984,
and stabilized in the mid- 500,000 range in the 1990s.
Over the past eight years, North Carolina has had an astounding 1.1 million in-crease
in the raw number of registered voters: registration climbed from 3.8 million in
1992 to 4.9 million in 2000. On the surface, it appears that voter registration out- paced
population growth in the 1990s. What happened? It is that North Carolina has dramati-cally
felt the effects of the 1993 federal law, popularly known as “ motor- voter.’’
This law made it easier for people to register to vote, whether through the de-partment
of motor vehicles, mail- in registration, or social services agencies. What’s
more, the law put limits on the purging of voter rolls. The staff of the State Board of
Elections estimates that the current voter registration total is inflated by 500,000 “ inac-tive’’
voters, including people who have moved away or who have not voted in recent
elections but whose names cannot be purged under the law until 2001. The two- party
vote total in 2000 was just about the same as in 1996, but the turnout percentage was
lower because the total registration figure was significantly larger.
( continued on page 2)
This will be the last issue of
North Carolina DataNet
published by the Odum In-stitute
for Research in Social
Science. See page 14 for
details on our new home. !
North Carolina DataNet ! Number 25 ! June 2000 2
Another factor probably has contributed to lower
turnout percentages in the 1990s than in the ’ 70s and
’ 80s. Presidential contests usually draw more voters to
the polls than statewide races. When the General Assem-bly
decided to schedule all first primaries in May, it had
the effect of putting North Carolina late in the presiden-tial
nominating lineup. With the national nominations
practically decided before North Carolinians have voted
for three consecutive primary elections, presidential races
have not served as a draw to higher turnout in gubernato-rial
and senatorial primaries.
In effect, North Carolina now has two distinct
electorates: 1) a core of partisan voters– Republicans as
well as Democrats– who decide party nominations, and 2)
a much larger general- election group that includes party
loyalists, independents, and swing voters. ♦
NC Party Registration: 1966- 2000
Thad Beyle ( UNC- CH Political Science)
Over the past one- third of a century there have
been some significant shifts in how North Carolina voters
view themselves when registering to vote. ( See “ NC Vot-ers’
Party Registration” table ( below left).
In the mid- 1960s, registered Democrats outnum-bered
registered Republicans by a 4.5 to 1 ratio. Since
then, there has been a consistent decline in the percentage
of voters registered as Democrats, from nearly 80% to
just above 50%. Between 1966 and 1972 the decline av-eraged
2.1 percentage points each two- year period. Be-tween
1972 and 1984 the decline slowed to an average of
only a half a percentage point each two- year period.
Then, since 1984 the decline has averaged about 2.5 per-centage
points each two- year period. By April of this
year, the Democratic- Republican registration ratio was
only 1.5 to 1.
Over the same period, Republican registration has
increased from just below 18% in 1966 to nearly 34%
this past April. But that increase has been at a slower
pace, averaging less than a percentage point gain each
two- year period. The periods of greatest gain were in the
mid 1960s and 1980s. However, since 1996 that growth
has leveled off at about one- third of the registered voters.
One of the most interesting shifts over the period
is the growth of Independent or non- affiliated voters in
the state. At only 2.5% of the registered voters in 1968,
their percentage has risen to 15.4% by this April— a six-fold
increase. For most of the period that growth was by
very small increments each two- year period. But over the
1990s the increments have become greater, rising from
5.5% of the registered voters in 1990 to 15.4% in April
2000.
No wonder both major political parties have
opened up their primaries to these unaffiliated voters. If
you can get them to vote in your party’s primary, you will
probably get their vote in the November election— or so
the theory goes. ♦
First Primary Turnout as a Measure of Party Strength
Democrat Republican Total Votes Reg. Voters % Turnout
1960 643,060- G ------------- 643,060 N/ A N/ A
1972 808,105- G 107,583- G 915,688 2,280,000 40.2
1984 955,799- G 148,574- S 1,104,373 3,271,000 33.8
845,946- S 140,354- G
1992 701,606- G 270,568- S 972,174 3,817,000 25.5
1996 588,926- S 279,610- G 867,536 4,331,000 20.0
1998 540,031- S 265,288- S 705,319 4,740,000 14.9
2000 553,794- G 312,529- G 865,323 4,930,000 17.5
G = Gubernatorial primary S = Senatorial primary Source: NC State Board of Elections
NC Voters' Party Registration:
1966- April 2000
Year % Dem. % Rep. % Ind.
1966 79.7 17.8 ( not avail.)
1968 75.5 21.6 2.5
1970 75.3 21.9 2.5
1972 73.4 22.9 3.7
1974 72.6 23.6 3.8
1976 72.5 23.5 4.0
1978 72.6 23.3 4.1
1980 72.4 23.5 4.1
1982 71.9 24.0 4.1
1984 70.0 25.6 4.4
1986 68.6 27.2 4.2
1988 65.6 29.6 4.9
1990 63.7 30.8 5.5
1992 60.6 31.9 7.5
1994 58.6 32.8 8.7
1996 54.4 33.7 11.9
1998 52.7 33.9 13.4
2000 ( April) 50.6 33.9 15.4
Sources: NC Center for Public Policy Research,
“ The Two Party System in NC,” ( Raleigh, Dec 1987);
NC Free, Sep 1998; and NC State Board of Elections.
North Carolina DataNet ! Number 25 ! June 2000 3
NC Voter Registration & Turnout in General Elections: 1960- 2000
Total NC Total NC NC Turnout Party of Winner
Voting- Age Registered # of % of Reg. % of Voting-
Year Population Voters Voters Voters Age Pop. Pres. Sen. Gov.
1960 2,585,000 N/ A 1,368,556 -- 52.9 D D D
1962 2,647,000 N/ A 813,155 ( senate) -- 30.7 -- D --
1964 2,723,000 N/ A 1,424,983 -- 52.3 D -- D
1966 2,798,000 1,933,763 901,978 46.6 32.2 -- D --
1968 2,921,000 2,077,538 1,587,493 76.4 54.4 D D D
1970 3,043,000 1,945,187 932,948 63.9 30.7 -- -- --
1972 3,541,399 2,357,645 1,518,612 64.4 42.9 R R R
1974 3,725,037 2,279,646 1,020,367 ( senate) 44.8 27.4 -- D --
1976 3,884,477 2,553,717 1,677,906 65.7 43.2 D -- D
1978 4,053,977 2,430,306 1,135,814 ( senate) 46.7 28.0 -- R --
1980 4,222,654 2,774,844 1,855,833 66.9 43.9 R R D
1982 4,416,444 2,674,787 1,330,630 49.7 30.1 -- -- --
1984 4,585,788 3,270,933 2,239,051 68.5 47.4 R R R
1986 4,738,687 3,080,990 1,591,330 ( senate) 51.6 33.6 -- D --
1988 4,887,358 3,432,042 2,134,370 62.2 43.7 R -- R
1990 5,016,747 3,347,635 2,068,904 ( senate) 61.8 41.2 -- R --
1992 5,182,321 3,817,380 2,611,850 68.4 50.4 R R D
1994 5,359,333 3,635,875 1,533,728 42.2 28.6 -- -- --
1996 5,499,000 4,330,657 2,618,326 60.5 47.6 R R D
1998 5,620,000 4,740,272 2,012,143 42.4 35.8 -- D --
2000 ( April) 4,930,319 ?? -- ??
Sources: Michael Barone and Grant Ujifusa, The Almanac of the United States ( Washington, DC: National Journal, 1972- 1998); US
Department of Commerce, Statistical Abstract of the United States ( various years); Federal Elections Commission; Office of the Secre-tary
of State, North Carolina Manual ( Raleigh: Department of State, since 1966); NC State Board of Elections, " General Voter Registra-tion
and Election Statistics,” NC Center for Public Policy Research, North Carolina Focus ( 1989) and " The Two Party System in North
Carolina," ( Raleigh, Dec 1987); and Curtis Gans, Committee for the Study of the American Electorate.
Largest Vote- Getters in Major Statewide Office Races: 1980- 1998
Candidate Status Race Year Total Votes NC Outcome
Jim Hunt incumbent NC Governor 1996 1,436,638 won
Jim Hunt open seat NC Governor 1992 1,368,246 won
Terry Sanford incumbent US Senator 1992 1,194,015 lost
Harvey Gantt challenging inc. US Senator 1996 1,173,875 lost
Jim Hunt incumbent NC Governor 1980 1,143,143 won
Bill Clinton challenging inc. President 1992 1,114,042 lost
Bill Clinton incumbent President 1996 1,107,849 lost
Jim Hunt challenging inc. US Senator 1984 1,070,488 lost
John Edwards challenging inc. US Senator 1998 1,029,237 won
Rufus Edmisten open seat NC Governor 1984 1,011,209 lost
Harvey Gantt challenging inc. US Senator 1990 981,573 lost
Bob Jordan challenging inc. NC Governor 1988 957,687 lost
Michael Dukakis open seat President 1988 890,167 lost
Robert Morgan incumbent US Senator 1980 887,653 lost
Jimmy Carter incumbent President 1980 875,635 lost
Walter Mondale challenging inc. President 1984 824,287 lost
Terry Sanford challenging inc. US Senator 1986 823,662 won
Ronald Reagan incumbent President 1984 1,346,481 won
Jesse Helms incumbent US Senator 1996 1,345,833 won
Lauch Faircloth challenging inc. US Senator 1992 1,297,892 won
George Bush open seat President 1988 1,237,258 won
Bob Dole challenging inc. President 1996 1,225,938 won
Jim Martin incumbent NC Governor 1988 1,222,338 won
Jim Martin open seat NC Governor 1984 1,208,167 won
Jesse Helms incumbent US Senator 1984 1,156,768 won
George Bush incumbent President 1992 1,134,661 won
Jim Gardner open seat NC Governor 1992 1,121,955 lost
Robin Hayes challenging inc. NC Governor 1996 1,097,053 lost
Jesse Helms incumbent US Senator 1990 1,088,331 won
Lauch Faircloth incumbent US Senator 1998 945,943 lost
Ronald Reagan challenging inc. President 1980 915,018 won
John East challenging inc. US Senator 1980 898,064 won
James Broyhill incumbent US Senator 1986 767,668 lost
I. Beverly Lake, Jr. challenging inc. NC Governor 1980 691,449 lost
Source: Almanac of American Politics, 1982- 2000 D e m o c r a t s Re p u b l i c a n s
North Carolina DataNet ! Number 25 ! June 2000 4
Cost of Gubernatorial Elections
Thad Beyle ( UNC- CH Political Science)
The cost of running for office seems to be getting
higher and candidates’ need to raise money is as impor-tant
as their need to gain voting support. Nowhere does
this seem more true than in this state’s gubernatorial
elections since 1968. If we look at how much the candi-dates
reported spending over the last eight gubernatorial
elections, we see an increase from $ 2.2 million in 1968 to
$ 18 million in 1996. ( See “ Total Spending Reported”
column in table below.)
But when the inflation of the dollar over the period
is factored in, a somewhat different picture emerges. To
control for inflation in the expenditures for each of the
eight elections, the actual dollars spent were converted
into May 2000 dollar equivalents ( see “ Converting Cam-paign
Expenditures” box on page 6). Those results are
presented in the table below in the “ Total Spending ( in
2000$ Equivalent)” column. Here is what our analysis
reveals:
♦ The most expensive gubernatorial race over the pe-riod
was in 1972, when ten candidates sought the
governorship and both parties had to go to a second
primary to choose their candidates. Nearly four out
of every five dollars spent was by a Democratic can-didate.
By 51.3% to 48.7% margin, Jim Holshouser
beat Democrat Hargrove “ Skipper” Bowles and be-came
the first Republican to win the governor’s chair
in the twentieth century. The total spent for that race
was $ 33.6 million in 2000$, an average of $ 22.29
for each general election voter!
♦ The second most expensive race was the 1984 to
succeed then two- term Democratic Governor Jim
Hunt. A total of fourteen candidates spent the 2000$
equivalent $ 23.1 million in their quest for the gover-norship.
Again, Democratic candidates spent nearly
four out of every five dollars in the campaign ( in
good part because there were ten Democratic candi-dates
running and they needed a second primary to
select their candidate, Attorney General Rufus Ed-misten).
Congressman Jim Martin cruised through
Cost of Gubernatorial Elections: 1968- 1996
A. Campaign Expenditures per Election Year
Total Spending Total Spending Total # of Cost per Vote
Year Reported ( in 2000$ Equivalent) Votes Cast ( in 2000$)
1968 $ 2,190,136 $ 10,735,961 1,558,308 $ 6.89
1972 $ 8,201,585 $ 33,613,053 1,507,785 $ 22.29
1976 $ 4,428,910 $ 13,340,090 1,658,999 $ 8.04
1980 $ 3,818,190 $ 7,938,025 1,884,543 $ 4.21
1984 $ 14,048,311 $ 23,143,840 2,226,727 $ 10.39
1988 $ 12,513,720 $ 18,109,580 2,180,025 $ 8.31
1992 $ 13,353,473 $ 16,284,723 2,595,184 $ 6.27
1996 $ 18,021,728 $ 20,024,142 2,566,185 $ 7.80
Total $ 142,754,106 16,177,756 $ 8.82
Avg. $ 17,844,263 2,022,220 $ 8.82
B. Type of Election
Contested Primary?
Year Status Candidates Dem. Rep. Margin of Victory Dem $ Rep $
1968 Open Seat 5 Y Y + 6 D 55.7% 44.3%
1972 Open Seat 10 YY YY + 3 R 78.4% 21.6%
1976 Open Seat 9 Y YY + 32 D 90.2% 9.8%
1980 Incumbent 7 Y Y + 25 D 90.1% 9.9%
1984 Open Seat 14 YY Y + 9 R 78.2% 21.8%
1988 Incumbent 6 Y N + 12 R 53.9% 46.1%
1992 Open Seat 9 Y Y + 10 D 54.5% 42.5%
1996 Incumbent 9 N Y + 13 D 50.3% 49.7%
Note: Two “ total spending” figures are listed for each year: “ Total Spending Reported” is the total of the actual
amounts reported by all candidates; “ Total Spending in 2000$” is the reported amount converted to May 2000
dollar equivalents to control for the effect of inflation. ( See box on page 6 for details on conversion method.)
Contested Primary? Listed by party; Y = yes; YY = second primary
Dem $/ Rep $ = percent of total election expenditures spent by Democratic versus Republican candidates.
North Carolina DataNet ! Number 25 ! June 2000 5
his party’s primary and then defeated Edmisten 54%
to 45% to become North Carolina’s second Republi-can
governor in the century. The amount spent was
equal to $ 10.39 per general election voter.
♦ Next is the 1996 election, the third most expensive
race. Democrat Jim Hunt won his fourth term over
Republican Robin Hayes by a 56% to 43% margin.
The nine candidates spent $ 20 million in 2000$ in
this race, or about $ 7.80 per general election vote.
The least expensive race was Hunt’s 1980 second
term victory. The seven candidates only spent $ 7.9
million in 2000$ or $ 4.21 per general election vote.
♦ Looking at how much the candidates spent per vote
cast in the general election, we see that while the
races in 1972 ($ 22.29 per general election voter) and
1984 ($ 10.39) were the priciest, they were followed
by the 1988 race ($ 8.31), the 1976 race ($ 8.04), and
then the 1996 race ($ 7.80). Over the eight- election
period the average amount spent per voter was
$ 8.82. The five races for an open seat ( 1968, 1972,
1976, 1984, 1992) were more expensive on a $ 10.17
cost per voter basis than were the three incumbent
reelection races ( 1980, 1988, 1996) on a $ 6.95 cost
per voter basis.
♦ Note also the increasing parity in candidate spending
between the two parties. From 1972 to 1984, Demo-cratic
candidates considerably outspent their Repub-lican
counterparts. There was a 9 to 1 Democratic
advantage in Jim Hunt’s first two elections ( 1976,
1980) and a 4 to 1 ratio in the 1972 and 1984 elec-tions
as noted above. Since the 1984 election, Re-publican
spending has steadily closed in on Demo-cratic
spending: the margin difference in 1996 was a
mere 0.6%.
Several things stand out in terms of spending by
individual candidates in these eight elections ( see table
below):
♦ In five of the eight races, the winning candidate
spent more than the losing candidate. In 1976 Jim
Hunt outspent his opponent by a 6 to 1 ratio and then
followed that up by outspending his 1980 opponent
by a 8.5 to 1 ratio.
Winners’ and Losers’ Spending in NC Gubernatorial Elections: 1968- 1996
Campaign Spending by Winning Gubernatorial Candidates
Total Spending Total Spending Total # of Cost per Vote
Year Candidate Party Reported ( in 2000$) Votes Cast ( in 2000$)
1968 Bob Scott D $ 623,487 $ 3,056,309 821,233 $ 3.72
1972 Jim Holshouser R $ 962,289 $ 3,943,807 767,470 $ 5.14
1976 Jim Hunt D $ 1,665,913 $ 5,017,810 1,081,293 $ 4.64
1980 Jim Hunt D $ 3,199,316 $ 6,651,385 1,143,145 $ 5.82
1984 Jim Martin R $ 3,051,498 $ 5,027,180 1,208,167 $ 4.16
1988 Jim Martin R $ 5,770,785 $ 8,351,353 1,222,338 $ 6.83
1992 Jim Hunt D $ 6,978,623 $ 8,510,516 1,368,246 $ 6.22
1996 Jim Hunt D $ 9,063,854 $ 10,070,949 1,436,638 $ 7.01
Total $ 50,629,309 9,048,530
Average $ 6,328,664 1,131,066 $ 5.06
Campaign Spending by Losing Gubernatorial Candidates
1968 Jim Gardner R $ 651,351 $ 3,192,897 737,075 $ 4.33
1972 " Skipper" Bowles D $ 4,507,264 $ 18,472,393 729,104 $ 25.34
1976 David Flaherty R $ 277,045 $ 834,473 564,102 $ 1.48
1980 I. Beverly Lake, Jr. R $ 373,113 $ 786,098 691,449 $ 1.14
1984 Rufus Edmisten D $ 2,402,984 $ 3,958,787 1,011,209 $ 3.91
1988 Bob Jordan III D $ 6,738,168 $ 9,751,329 957,687 $ 10.18
1992 Jim Gardner R $ 5,655,013 $ 6,896,357 1,121,955 $ 6.15
1996 Robin Hayes R $ 6,953,236 $ 7,725,818 1,097,053 $ 7.04
Total $ 51,618,152 6,909,634
Average $ 6,452,269 863,704 $ 7.47
Average ( without 1972) $ 4,735,108 882,293 $ 5.36
Note: Two “ total spending” figures are listed for each year: “ Total Spending Reported” is the total of the actual
amounts reported by all candidates; “ Total Spending in 2000$” is the reported amount converted to May 2000
dollar equivalents to control for the effect of inflation. ( See box on page 6 for details on conversion method.)
Source: NC State Board of Elections
North Carolina DataNet ! Number 25 ! June 2000 6
♦ In two of the three exceptions to this winner spend-ing
more than losers pattern, Republican candidates
defeated their opponents in winning the election
( 1972, 1988). The other exception was in 1968 when
Lieutenant Governor Bob Scott bested Congressman
Jim Gardner by a six- point margin despite being
slightly outspent by Gardner.
♦ The most expensive campaign over the eight-election
period was in 1972 when Democratic candi-date
Hargrove “ Skipper” Bowles’ lost to Republican
Jim Holshouser even though spending $ 18.5 million
in 2000$ in the race! His nearly 5 to 1 spending ratio
against Holshouser still saw him lose by 3 percent-age
points. I once asked Terry Sanford why Bowles
lost the 1972 race despite spending so much on his
campaign. His answer was quick and short: “ It
wasn’t his turn!” Bowles had bested Lt. Governor
Pat Taylor in a tough second primary and it was
“ Taylor’s turn” to be governor. So, he lost support
among Democrats in the General Election.
♦ It may seem like an old saw, but every governor
elected since 1972 has been named Jim. And in
1968, the losing candidate was named Jim, and that
same Jim tried to come back in 1992 only to be
bested by another Jim, Hunt that is.
In this current 2000 election year, we may see the
Republican candidates outspend their Democratic coun-terparts
for the first time ever. Will that yield them their
third GOP governor since the turn of the last century?
Could be, and since the race is for an open seat it will be
expensive no matter who wins. And since there are no
Jims in the race, the results are not as easy to predict. ♦
Cost of U. S. Senatorial Elections
Thad Beyle ( UNC- CH Political Science)
The political history of North Carolina’s two U. S.
Senate seats is a tale of contrasts over the past 130 years.
The seat currently occupied by Jesse Helms was
held by a total of eleven individuals between 1872 and
1973, with an average term of service of more than nine
years. Between 1872 and 1946, only four individuals
held this seat, averaging nearly nineteen years of service
each. Then between 1946 and 1973, seven men averaged
under four years of service each.
Among the seat’s notable alumni were Furnifold
Simmons, who helped create and run the first Democratic
political machine over the first quarter of the twentieth
century; UNC System president Frank Porter Graham,
who was appointed by Governor Kerr Scott in 1950 to
fill a vacancy; and Governor Scott himself. By the 1970s,
it had become a seat of fairly rapid turnover.
The John Edwards seat was held by a total of nine
individuals between 1873 and 1975, with an average term
of service of more than eleven years. Between 1932 to
1974, only three men served, for an average of fourteen
years each.
Notables holding this seat included Governor Ze-bulon
Vance in the late nineteenth century; Governors
Cameron Morrison of the 1920s and Clyde Hoey of the
pre- World War II era; and Sam Ervin, the star of the
Senate Watergate hearings. This seat was relatively sta-ble,
especially between the Depression era and the 1970s.
However, since the 1972 and 1974 elections, the
political history of these seats has diverged considerably.
Jesse Helms was elected in 1972, has served since 1973,
and may seek yet another term in 2002. Meanwhile, the
other seat has had six different occupants since “ Senator
Sam” retired in 1974: Robert Morgan ( D), John Porter
East ( R), Jim Broyhill ( R), Terry Sanford ( D), Lauch
Faircloth ( R), and John Edwards ( D).
Despite the relative stability of Helms’ seat and
the great instability of the Edwards revolving door seat, it
is the campaign costs for Helms’ seat that have been by
far the higher of the two ( see “ Cost of US Senate Elec-tions”
table on page 7). The five Helms races have cost
candidates a total of $ 92 million ( in 2000 dollar equiva-lents)
compared to the total of $ 48 million for the five
revolving door races. A single race for the Helms seat has
averaged ( in 2000 dollar equivalents), $ 18.4 million,
while a single race for the revolving door seat has aver-aged
$ 9.7 million ( in 2000 dollar equivalents). Some
analysts argue that the Helms seat is stable precisely be-cause
the Senator has been able to raise and spend so
much money in his campaigns, while there are many rea-sons
for the instability in the revolving door seat.
Converting Campaign Expendi-tures
to May 2000$ Equivalents
Campaign expenditures were converted into May
2000 dollar equivalents in order to compare across
years and control for inflation.
May 2000 dollar equivalents were created from the
Consumer Price Index- Urban, using 1982- 84 as
the base years [= 1.000]. The May 2000 CPI- U in-dex
value was 1.713. To determine each year’s
2000$ value, that year’s CPI- U was divided by the
May 2000 1.713 value. The 1968 CPI- U was .349
on the 1982- 84 base; this divided by the 1.713 May
2000 CPI- U equaled .204. Other years are:
1972 = .418 [. 244] 1974 = .493 [. 288]
1976 = .569 [. 332] 1978 = .652 [. 381]
1980 = .824 [. 481] 1984 = 1.039 [. 607]
1986 = 1.096 [. 640] 1988 = 1.183 [. 691]
1990 = 1.307 [. 763] 1992 = 1.403 [. 819]
1996 = 1.569 [. 920] 1998 = 1.630 [. 952]
North Carolina DataNet ! Number 25 ! June 2000 7
We will have to wait and see whether Helms seeks
to extend his hold in 2002. If he doesn’t run, will the
campaign expenditures be considerably less in that race?
And in 2004, will Edwards be able to break the three-decade
jinx of the revolving door by being reelected? ♦
Cost of US Senate Elections: 1972- 1998
Campaign Expenditures per Election Year
Total Spending Total Spending Total # of Cost per Vote
Year Reported ( in 2000$ Equivalent) Votes Cast ( in $ 2000)
1972 $ 1,124,339 $ 4,607,947 1,472,541 $ 3.13
1974 $ 1,166,728 $ 4,051,139 1,011,393 $ 4.01
1978 $ 8,387,293 $ 22,013,892 1,135,814 $ 19.38
1980 $ 2,124,084 $ 4,415,975 1,785,717 $ 2.47
1984 $ 26,379,483 $ 43,458,785 2,227,256 $ 19.51
1986 $ 9,356,753 $ 14,619,926 1,591,330 $ 9.19
1990 $ 25,572,829 $ 33,516,158 2,069,904 $ 16.19
1992 $ 5,438,482 $ 6,640,393 2,577,891 $ 2.58
1996 $ 22,582,246 $ 24,545,919 2,556,456 $ 9.60
1998 $ 17,707,153 $ 18,599,950 2,012,143 $ 9.24
Total $ 176,470,084 18,440,445 $ 9.58
Type of Election
Contested Primary?
Year Status Dem. Rep. Margin of Victory Dem $ Rep $
1972 Open Seat YY Y + 8 R 43.0% 57.0%
1974 Open Seat Y Y + 26 D 67.0 33.0
1978 Incumbent YY N + 10 R 3.1 96.9
1980 Incumbent N N + 1 R 44.6 55.4
1984 Incumbent Y Y + 4 R 35.9 64.1
1986 Appointee Y Y + 4 D 44.7 55.4
1990 Incumbent YY Y + 6 R 30.5 69.5
1992 Incumbent N Y + 4 R 45.7 54.3
1996 Incumbent Y N + 7 R 35.4 64.6
1998 Incumbent Y N + 4 D 47.1 52.9
Note: Two “ total spending” figures are listed for each year: “ Total Spending Reported” is the total of the actual
amounts reported by all candidates; “ Total Spending in 2000$” is the reported amount converted to May 2000
dollar equivalents to control for the effect of inflation. ( See box on page 6 for details on conversion method.)
Appointee = incumbent had been appointed to the seat, and was now seeking election in his own right
Contested Primary? Listed by party; Y = yes; YY = second primary
Sources: Almanac of American Politics, 1974- 2000; NC State Board of Elections
North Carolina DataNet ! Number 25 ! June 2000 8
Helms/ Hunt Political Money
Thad Beyle ( UNC- CH Political Science)
Over the last three decades, two major political
figures have dominated our state’s politics: Senator Jesse
Helms and Governor Jim Hunt. According to the analysis
in the table below, their initial elections have turned out
to be their least expensive races. Helms spent “ only” $ 2.7
million in his 1972 win and Hunt spent “ only” $ 5 million
in his 1976 win ( in 2000 dollar equivalents). Since those
elections, the cost of winning their elections has in-creased
considerably, especially for Helms.
Not only have they continued to win their elec-tions,
they were involved in the “ Great 1984 Train
Wreck” when they did battle over who would hold
Helms’ U. S. Senate seat come 1985. The 1984 race was a
train wreck in that these two political figures were on the
same track moving at high speed toward each other. Once
Hunt won reelection in 1980 and would be leaving office
in 1985, it was fairly apparent that if he was to go further
in the state’s politics, that U. S. Senate seat was the op-tion.
And an expensive train wreck it was, with the can-didates
spending ( in 2000 dollar equivalents), $ 43.5 mil-lion,
making it probably the most expensive statewide
political race in North Carolina history. To hold on to the
seat, Helms outspent Hunt by a 1.8 to 1 ratio ( in 2000
dollar equivalents, that would be $ 27.9 million to $ 15.6
million).
But Helms has consistently spent more money on
his campaigns than has Hunt. The former spent $ 92 mil-lion
in his five U. S. Senate races compared to the $ 45.6
million Hunt has spent on his four gubernatorial and one
senatorial races— a 2 to 1 ratio. And this was even true in
their 1996 reelection races, where ( in 2000 dollar
equivalents), Helms outspent Hunt $ 16.9 million to $ 9.9
million, or a 1.7 to 1 ratio. ♦
Campaign Spending by Jesse Helms and Jim Hunt
Total Spending Total Spending Total # of Cost per Vote
Year Reported ( in 2000$ Equivalent) Votes Cast ( in 2000$)
Jesse Helms
1972 $ 654,246 $ 2,681,366 795,248 $ 3.37
1978 $ 8,123,205 $ 21,320,748 619,151 $ 34.44
1984 $ 16,917,559 $ 27,870,772 1,156,768 $ 24.09
1990 $ 17,761,579 $ 23,278,609 1,088,331 $ 21.39
1996 $ 14,589,266 $ 16,870,103 1,345,833 $ 12.54
Total $ 92,021,598 5,005,331 $ 18.38
Average per election $ 18,404,319 1,001,006 $ 18.38
Jim Hunt
1976 $ 1,665,913 $ 5,017,810 1,081,293 $ 4.64
1980 $ 3,199,316 $ 6,651,385 1,143,145 $ 5.82
1984* $ 9,461,924 $ 15,588,013 1,070,488 $ 14.56
1992 $ 6,978,623 $ 8,520,907 1,368,246 $ 6.22
1996 $ 9,063,854 $ 9,852,015 1,436,638 $ 7.01
Total $ 45,630,130 6,099,810 $ 7.48
Average per election $ 9,126,026 1,219,962 $ 7.48
Note: Two “ total spending” figures are listed for each year: “ Total Spending Reported” is the actual amount
reported; “ Total Spending in 2000$” is the reported amount converted to May 2000 dollar equivalents to control
for the effect of inflation. ( See box on page 6 for details on conversion method.)
1984* Hunt’s US Senate race. All Helms’ races were for the US Senate.
Sources: Almanac of American Politics, 1974- 2000; NC State Board of Elections
North Carolina DataNet ! Number 25 ! June 2000 9
A State Lottery for NC?
Thad Beyle ( Note: A version of this article appeared
in the June 2, 2000 issue of the Chapel Hill News).
This past spring, the two leading Democratic can-didates
for governor agreed on one major issue: that
North Carolina should establish a state lottery and use the
proceeds for education. Mike Easley and Dennis Wicker
disagreed on exactly what part of education should re-ceive
these funds, but many observers were surprised at
their insistence that the state get into the lottery business.
Why should the lottery suddenly become a major
issue in this year’s gubernatorial race? There are several
reasons: money, media, policy, and politics.
♦ Money: adjoining states have lotteries and they have
been attracting North Carolina money to them. Why
shouldn’t we get a lottery so we keep those funds
here in our state? And we do need more revenues for
the state budget, especially in education.
♦ Media: not only do we see TV programs like Who
Wants to Be a Millionaire? flourishing, but there is
close coverage of people who win major lotteries
across the country. Who wouldn’t be enticed by
pictures of happy new millionaires holding oversized
checks with their winnings?
♦ Policy: Georgia has successfully used lottery receipts
to subsidize college education through its Hope
Scholarships, making the state a bright beacon for
what a well conceived lottery can achieve to help
education within a state. More Georgians are going
on to college and are staying in the state.
♦ Politics: the 1998 gubernatorial elections in Alabama
and South Carolina saw two incumbent anti- gaming
Republican governors unseated by Democratic
challengers who advocated a state lottery. If the is-sue
can win elections, use it.
Of course there are reasons not to get into the lot-tery
business. These include serious religious objections
over the lottery as a moral issue. Others worry about a
lottery encouraging citizens to gamble, creating false
hopes of winning a lot of money, and assisting them in
becoming gambling addicts. Others see a lottery as a not
so hidden tax, and a very regressive tax at that.
What are the prospects of North Carolina adopting
a state lottery? The first step is to get a lottery- supporting
candidate elected as governor. Without a governor in the
lead, a state lottery is dead in the water in this state. The
next step is to get the newly elected legislature to agree
with the new governor’s lottery proposal and put the
proposition out to the public for a referendum vote. State
legislative candidates can expect some serious questions
this year about their stance on a possible state lottery.
How would North Carolinians vote on this propo-sition?
They would support it, according to the series of
seven Carolina Polls taken between 1983 and 1999 which
asked respondents about a state lottery ( see “ Trends in
Lottery Support” table, below). Support has generally
ranged from a 2 to 1 positive ratio to a 4 to 1 positive
ratio, depending on how the question was worded. The
recent fall 1999 Carolina Poll found a 62% support to
31% oppose ratio ( see “ Populations Likely to Support or
Oppose” table, next page).
Of interest here is which populations are most
likely to support or oppose a state lottery. The sub-groups
most likely to support a state lottery included re-spondents
ages 18 to 24 years old, respondents who
never attend church or attend church infrequently, re-spondents
who have never married, respondents in the
coastal region of the state, and respondents at the lowest
end of the income scale. The sub- groups most likely to
oppose a state lottery were respondents who attend
church at least once a week, respondents age 65 or older,
respondents in the mountain region, and respondents at
the highest end of the income scale. The key differences
here revolve around age, income, and religion.
But as samples of adult North Carolinians, these
polls can be misleading come election day. How would a
sample of registered voters differ? More importantly,
Trends in Lottery Support: 1983- 99
Poll Date Question* % Positive % Negative
April 1983 a 59 G 28 B
October 1989 b 66 S 25 O
October 1990 b 61 S 24 O
March 1994 c 72 Y 21 N
March 1997 b 61 S 30 O
March 1998 d 69 F 16 O
October 1999 b 62 S 31 O
* Question wording and response options:
a " Do you think a state lottery would be a good
idea or a bad idea?" G = good, B = bad
b " Do you support or oppose a state lottery for
North Carolina?" S = support, O = oppose
c " Do you think North Carolina lawmakers should
consider starting a lottery to help our schools?"
Y = yes, N = no
d " Some people favor a state lottery to raise reve-nue
for the NC educational system. Other people
oppose a lottery on moral or economic grounds.”
F = favor, O = oppose ( Split sample; see note in
“ Populations Likely to Support or Oppose a NC
Lottery” table, page 10)
Sources: Various years of the Carolina Poll
( http:// www. irss. unc. edu/ irss/ researchdesservices/
researchdeslinks/ cpollreports. htm).
North Carolina DataNet ! Number 25 ! June 2000 10
how would a poll of “ likely voters” differ? My guess is
that the lottery issue is much tighter than it first appears
once we get down to people who would actually have the
interest and take the time to vote. And with the issues and
perspectives involved, it would be a very tough cam-paign.
One last point on how even those in politics can
misread public sentiment from election results. Newly
elected Alabama Governor Don Siegelman took immedi-ate
steps to implement his pro lottery stance. It passed the
state legislature and then went out to the voters for their
concurrence. They didn’t concur, defeating the proposal
with a 55% “ no” vote! This was the same electorate that
had elected the pro state lottery Siegelman only a year
earlier by 58%. What happened? In retrospect, the media
and other analysts now believe what happened in that
election was the voters were more interested in evicting
incumbent Governor Fob James than in getting a state
lottery. So, read those public opinion polls and the votes
in the poll booth very carefully. ♦
Presidential Voting and NC Voters
Christine A. Kelleher and Thad Beyle
( UNC- CH Political Science)
In its February 21, 2000 issue, USA Today re-leased
a ranking of the best to worst U. S. presidents. All
forty- one men who ever held the office were ranked ac-cording
to the quality of their performance by a survey of
fifty- eight presidential historians ( see “ USA Today’s
Presidential Rankings versus NC’s Voting History” table
on page 12). While it is interesting to explore where all
of the different presidents fall in a national historical
framework, an equally interesting question explores how
the voters in North Carolina measured up in voting for
our presidents. Did they support those at the top of the
ranking more than those further down the rankings? Or is
there no distinct pattern of North Carolina voters being
able to discern the potential quality of performance?
The top presidents, ranked in order from one to
ten, were Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Delano Roosevelt,
George Washington, Theodore Roosevelt, Harry S.
Truman, Woodrow Wilson, Thomas Jefferson, John F.
Kennedy, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and Lyndon B. John-son.
There is a clear twentieth century bias in the top ten
ranking, with only three— Lincoln, Washington, and Jef-ferson—
nineteenth century mentions. The top presidents’
service in office generally coincided with major events in
the history of our country: the Revolutionary War, the
creation of the new Union, the Civil War, World War I,
the Great Depression, World War II, the Cold War, and
the Civil Rights era.
The ten top presidents ran in nineteen presidential
elections, winning eighteen of them nationally. They won
a majority of North Carolina’s Electoral College ( EC) 1
votes in twelve ( 63%) of these races. The seven excep-tions
are of interest. Two exceptions were tied to the fact
that North Carolina was not in the Union when the elec-tion
occurred. In 1789 ( George Washington’s first elec-tion),
North Carolina had not yet ratified the Constitu-tion,
having led the fight to have a Bill of Rights attached
before ratifying it. In 1864 ( Lincoln’s second election),
North Carolina was part of the Confederacy, having se-ceded
from the Union. Another exception was in 1860
( Lincoln’s first election), when the Civil War loomed on
the horizon. Two other exceptions were tied to Teddy
Roosevelt, who in 1904 was an “ accidental President”
seeking to win the office in his own right and who in
1912 was a former president trying to regain the office as
the candidate of the Progressive Party. The final two ex-ceptions
were the two Eisenhower elections in the 1950s.
While Ike didn’t carry North Carolina, his two presiden-tial
campaigns had much to do in helping Republicans
become a greater force in the state.
Populations Likely to Support or
Oppose a NC Lottery: Oct 1999
Sub- Groups More Likely to Favor a Lottery
( total sample) 62%
18- 24 years old 81
Never attend church 80
Attend church less than once a month 77
Never married 76
Attend church 1- 3 times a month 72
Live in coastal region 70
Earn less than $ 10,000 per year 69
Sub- Groups More Likely to Oppose a Lottery
( total sample) 31%
Attend church at least once a week 47
65 years or older 45
Live in mountain region 41
Republican 37
Earn $ 80,000 or more a year 37
Note: Question wording was: " Some people favor a
state lottery to raise revenue for the NC educational
system. Other people oppose a lottery on moral or
economic grounds. Do you strongly favor, favor, op-pose,
or strongly oppose a state lottery with the reve-nue
used to support education?" The sample was
split for this question, with half the respondents asked
the question as worded as above and half asked the
question with sentences 1 and 2 reversed. The re-sponses
were not appreciably different and the re-sults
were merged for presentation here. Also, the
“ strongly favor” and “ favor” responses were com-bined,
as were the “ oppose” and “ strongly oppose”
responses.
Source: Fall 1999 Carolina Poll, October 23- 30,
1999, 717 adult NC residents.
North Carolina DataNet ! Number 25 ! June 2000 11
Presidential Elections in NC
First, let’s look at the fifty- three presidential elec-tions
North Carolina held between 1789 and 1996. Over-all,
in the fifty- one presidential elections in which the
state’s EC votes counted, the winner nationally also won
in the state thirty- four times ( 67%). But there have been
four rather distinct patterns over the two centuries in the
results of these elections in North Carolina.
♦ In the eighteen presidential elections in the pre- Civil
War period, the state’s EC vote went to the winning
candidate fourteen times ( 78%). The only presidents
not winning the state’s EC votes during this period
were John Adams ( 1796), John Quincy Adams
( 1824) and James Polk ( 1844). The other election
was the 1789 noted above.
♦ In the ten presidential elections between 1860 and
1900, there was considerable deviation between the
vote in the nation and the vote in the state, as the
Civil War and its aftermath were being felt. Only
four presidents won the state’s EC vote in this pe-riod:
Ulysses S. Grant ( 1868 and 1872) and Grover
Cleveland ( 1884 and 1892). This was a 44% winning
rate, discounting the 1864 election noted above.
♦ In the seventeen presidential elections between the
McKinley election of 1900 and the Johnson election
of 1964, the state was safely Democratic. The only
Republican presidential candidate to carry the state
was Herbert Hoover in 1928. Many of the state’s
Democratic voters just couldn’t buy the Democratic
candidate, New York Governor Al Smith, a Catholic
and a Prohibition- Era “ wet.” The state’s EC vote
went to the winner in ten of these contests, a 59%
winning rate.
♦ In the eight presidential elections since 1968, North
Carolinians’ votes went to the Republican candidate
in all but the 1976 Jimmy Carter victory. North
Carolina’s vote went to the winner in seven of these
eight elections ( 88%).
How Individual Presidents Have Fared in NC
Now, we turn to see how individual presidents
have fared in presidential elections in NC. In this discus-sion,
“ presidents” are individuals who either won the
presidency, ran for reelection, or sought to regain the
office. Election attempts prior to their initial presidential
win ( e. g., Nixon in 1960) are not included. ( See “ Total
Number of Presidential Elections” table, below.)
♦ These forty- one presidents were involved in sixty-three
separate presidential elections and won fifty-three
of them nationally ( 84%). They won the state’s
EC vote in thirty- six of the sixty- three races ( 57%).
♦ The top twenty presidents in the rankings were in-volved
in more presidential elections ( 38) than those
in the bottom half ( 25), a 1.5 to 1 ratio. Part of this
disparity is tied to those presidents in the lower half
who either died in their first and only term ( Garfield,
Harding, W. H. Harrison, Taylor), or as vice presi-dents
succeeded to the presidency and only served
out that term following the death of the elected
president ( Arthur, Filmore, Ford, A. Johnson, Tyler).
♦ The twenty presidents in the top half of the rankings
won thirty- four of their thirty- eight races nationally
( 89%), and won North Carolina’s EC vote in twenty-five
of these races ( 66%).
♦ The twenty- one presidents in the bottom half of the
rankings won nineteen of their twenty- five races na-tionally
( 76%) and won North Carolina’s EC vote in
eleven of these races ( 44%).
♦ Nineteen presidents won every one of their elections
in North Carolina: Buchanan, Bush ( 2 races),
Cleveland ( 3 races), Grant ( 2), W. H. Harrison, Jack-son
( 2), Jefferson ( 2), L. Johnson, Kennedy, Madi-son
( 2), Monroe ( 2), Nixon ( 2), Pierce, Reagan ( 2),
F. Roosevelt ( 4), Taylor, Truman, Washington, Wil-son
( 2)
Total Number of Presidential Elections
USA Today Won- US Lost- US Total #
Quartile Ranking Total W- NC L- NC Total W- NC L- NC of Elections
# 1 through # 10 18 12 4 [ 2]* 1 0 1 19
# 11 through # 20 16 11 5 3 2 1 19
# 21 through # 30 11 5 6 4 0 4 15
# 31 through # 41 8 6 2 2 0 2 10
Total 53 34 17 10 2 8 63
Note: Table includes all presidential elections in which a president was elected, an incumbent president sought
another term, or a former president sought to return to the White House.
Won/ Lost- US: Total = national elections won/ lost; W- NC = NC elections won; L- NC = NC elections lost
* Two elections occurred when NC was not part of the Union ( Washington’s in 1789 and Lincoln’s in 1864).
North Carolina DataNet ! Number 25 ! June 2000 12
USA Today’s Presidential Rankings versus NC’s Voting History
NC Outcome NC Outcome
Rank President Year Won? Vote % Rank President Year Won? Vote %
1 Abraham Lincoln W 1860 N 3% 21 Bill Clinton W 1992 N 43%
W 1864* Not in Union W 1996 N 44%
2 Franklin Roosevelt W 1932 Y 70% 22 Jimmy Carter W 1976 Y 55%
W 1936 Y 73% 1980 N 47%
W 1940 Y 74% 23 Gerald Ford 1974* VP
W 1944 Y 67% 1976 N 44%
3 George Washington W 1789* Not in Union 24 William H. Taft W 1908 N46%
W 1792 Y 12/ 12 EC 1912* N 12%
4 Theodore Roosevelt 1900* VP 25 Richard M. Nixon W 1968* Y 40%
W 1904 N 40% W 1972 Y 70%
1912 N 28% 26 Rutherford Hayes W 1876 N 46%
5 Harry Truman 1944* VP 27 Calvin Coolidge 1920* VP
W 1948 Y 58% W 1924 N 40%
6 Woodrow Wilson W 1912 Y 59% 28 Zachary Taylor W 1848 Y55%
W 1916 Y 58% 29 James Garfield W 1880 N 48%
7 Thomas Jefferson W 1800 Y 58% 30 Martin Van Buren W 1836 Y 53%
W 1804 Y 14/ 14 EC 1840 N 42%
8 John Kennedy W 1960 Y 52% 31 Benjamin Harrison W 1888 N 48%
9 Dwight Eisenhower W 1952 N 46% 1892 N 36%
W 1956 N 49% 32 Chester Arthur 1880* VP
10 Lyndon Johnson 1960* VP 33 Ulysses S. Grant W 1868 Y 53%
W 1964 Y 56% W 1872 Y57%
11 Ronald Reagan W 1980 Y 49% 34 Herbert Hoover W 1928 Y 55%
W 1984 Y 61% 1932 N 29%
12 James Polk W 1844 N 48% 35 Millard Filmore 1852* VP
13 Andrew Jackson W 1828 Y 73% 36 John Tyler 1840* VP
W 1832 Y 85% 37 William H. Harrison W 1840 Y58%
14 James Monroe W 1816 Y 97% 38 Warren Harding W 1920 N43%
W 1820 Y 96% 39 Franklin Pierce W 1852 Y 50.4%
15 William McKinley W 1896 N 47% 40 Andrew Johnson 1865* VP
W 1900 N 46% 41 James Buchanan W 1856* Y 57%
16 John Adams W 1796 N 1/ 24 EC
17 Grover Cleveland W 1884 Y 53%
1888 Y 52%
W 1892 Y 48%
18 James Madison W 1808 Y 48%
W 1812 Y 15/ 15 EC
19 John Q. Adams W 1824 N 36%
1828 N 27%
20 George Bush W 1988 Y 58%
1992 Y 44%
Rank = USA Today ranking ( See “ Presidential Voting” article, page 10)
Year: W = won national election for president
NC Outcome: Won in NC? = Yes/ No; Vote % = % of the NC popular vote ( for elections prior to 1816, the # of
Electoral College votes won out of # possible are listed in lieu of actual returns).
VP = vice- president, succeeded after death of president
* = See the “ Notes for Presidential Rankings Table” ( page 13) for details on particular years.
Sources: Seth B. Hinshaw, North Carolina Election Returns 1790- 1866: Covering the Races for President,
Governor and US House ( Stockport, OH: S. B. Hinshaw, 1992); John L. Chaney, Jr., ed., North Carolina Gov-ernment,
1585- 1974, ( Raleigh: Secretary of State's Office, 1975); CQ's Guide to US Elections, ( Washington,
D. C. CQ Press, 1975), and Venessa Goodman and Jack Betts, Growth of a Two- Party System in North Caro-lina
( Raleigh: North Carolina Center for Public Policy Research, 1987).
North Carolina DataNet ! Number 25 ! June 2000 13
♦ Fifteen presidents never won any of their twenty- two
races in North Carolina: J. Adams, J. Q. Adams ( 2
races), Clinton ( 2), Coolidge, Eisenhower ( 2), Ford,
Garfield, Harding, B. Harrison, Hayes, Lincoln,
McKinley ( 2), Polk, T. Roosevelt ( 2), Taft ( 2).
Summary
The panel of fifty- eight presidential historians
voted last winter on who they thought were the country’s
best and worst presidents. North Carolina voters and
electors have been casting their votes on presidents for
over the past two centuries. There are parallels and de-viations
between these two sets of votes. Not only is it
the president’s job performance while in office that has
counted in these votes, but the times in which they
served: wars, good times and bad times, terms shortened
by death, and being an “ accidental president” serving out
the terms of those who died or left office.
A general conclusion might be that North Carolina
voters are both leaders and followers. They have fol-lowed
national trends as well as deviated from them. Re-gardless
of their political positions, however, they have
undoubtedly demonstrated that their voice is an important
one, revealing much about the nature and course of both
North Carolina as a state as well as the more general no-tions
surrounding American history and tradition.
1Regarding North Carolina’s treatment of Electoral
College ( EC) votes, presidential electors were chosen by the
state legislature in 1792; in the 1796 to 1808 elections, electors
were selected in districts by popular vote; in 1812, electors
were selected by the state legislature; and since 1816, electors
have been selected by statewide popular vote. ♦
Notes for Presidential Rankings Table ( page 12)
1789 NC did not vote, since it had not yet ratified the U. S. Constitution.
1840 John Tyler ran as William Henry Harrison’s vice president in 1840 and succeeded to the presidency
when Harrison died one month after the inauguration. Both major parties spurned any bid by Tyler to
be nominated as their presidential candidate in 1844.
1852 Millard Filmore ran as Zachary Taylor’ vice president in 1848 and succeeded to the presidency follow-ing
Taylor’s death in 1850. Filmore lost his bid for the Whig nomination for president in 1852.
1856 James Buchanan did not seek reelection in 1860, nor would either wing of his splintered party have
considered him as a candidate.
1864 NC did not vote, since it had seceded from the Union.
1865 Andrew Johnson ran as Abraham Lincoln’s vice president in 1864 and succeeded to the presidency
following Lincoln’s assassination in April 1865. Johnson survived an impeachment attempt in 1868, but
the Democratic Party selected New York Governor Horatio Seymour as its candidate.
1880 Chester Arthur ran as James Garfield’s vice president in 1880 and succeeded to the presidency
following Garfield’s assassination in 1881. Declining health prevented Arthur from running in 1884.
1900 Theodore Roosevelt ran as William McKinley’s vice president in 1900 and succeeded to the presidency
following McKinley’s assassination in 1901.
1912 Woodrow Wilson beat Taft and Theodore Roosevelt
1920 Calvin Coolidge ran as Warren Harding’s vice president in 1920 and succeeded to the presidency
following Harding’s death in 1923.
1944 Harry Truman ran as Franklin Roosevelt’s vice president in 1944 and succeeded to the presidency
following Roosevelt’s death in 1945.
1960 Lyndon Johnson ran as John Kennedy’s vice president in 1960 and succeeded to the presidency
following Kennedy’s assassination in 1963.
1968 Nixon defeated Hubert Humphrey ( who received 29% of NC vote) and George Wallace ( 31%).
1974 Gerald Ford was appointed vice president by Richard Nixon after Spiro Agnew resigned in October
1973. Ford succeeded to the presidency following Nixon’s resignation in August 1974.
North Carolina DataNet ! Number 25 ! June 2000 14
NC DataNet’s New Home
Ferrel Guillory ( UNC- CH Program on Media,
Southern Politics and Public Life,
School of Journalism and Mass Communications)
The Program on Southern Politics, Media and
Public Life seeks to enhance the public service mission
of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill by
serving as a vehicle for the university to assert its schol-arly
strength and civic tradition in the region. Its princi-pal
goals are to create on campus a common- ground
meeting place for civic, business, journalistic and politi-cal
leaders and to enrich research and learning opportu-nities
for faculty and students.
It is in keeping with the program’s efforts to make
the work of scholars and their students more accessible
that the program has become the publishing home of
North Carolina DataNet. This is a quarterly newsletter of
government and political data, edited by UNC- CH Politi-cal
Science Professor Thad Beyle, and published, until
now, by the Odom Institute for Research in Social Sci-ence
( IRSS). As a result of recent administrative changes,
the Odum Institute can no longer publish North Carolina
DataNet. Because of the value of this publication— as an
outlet for faculty research and student projects— the Pro-gram
on Southern Politics, Media and Public Life agreed
to become its new publisher. The newsletter’s audience
includes faculty in political science and the humanities,
state legislators, journalists, opinion leaders, and others
with an interest in politics in this state.
In addition to publishing North Carolina DataNet,
the Program on Southern Politics, Media and Public Life
has the following line- up of projects:
Executive Seminars for State Legislators
This project, conducted in collaboration with the
UNC- CH Program on the Humanities and Human Val-ues,
gives lawmakers, with a special emphasis on
emerging leaders, an opportunity to read, think, and talk
about big issues of our time. The second seminar in this
series is scheduled for November 12- 15, 2000, in Chapel
Hill. The first seminar last year attracted eighteen state
legislators from seven states. Presenters included former
Governor William Winter of Mississippi, former Gover-nor
James Holshouser of North Carolina, historians John
Hope Franklin and William Leuchtenburg, UNC- CH
Public Health Dean William Roper, UNC- CH Education
Dean Madeleine Grumet, and former UNC System Presi-dent
William Friday.
Southern Journalists Roundtables
Once a semester, the program gathers a roundtable
of columnists, editorial writers, and state capital corre-spondents,
along with UNC faculty and graduate stu-dents,
to consider emerging and enduring issues in the
Southern states. The fifth roundtable will take place fol-lowing
the 2000 general election.
Election 2000 Project
The Program on Southern Politics, Media and
Public Life joined as a “ state partner’’ to the Alliance for
Better Campaigns, a Pew- funded organization working to
expand candidate- centered discourse on television. The
program has two roles: a) to encourage television stations
in North Carolina to devote five minutes a day to cam-paign
coverage in the thirty days prior to an election, as
recommended by the federal Advisory Commission on
the Public Interest Obligations of Digital Broadcasters;
and b) to monitor TV coverage of the gubernatorial race
in North Carolina. Jim Goodmon, the chief executive of
Capitol Broadcasting Co., who served on the Advisory
Commission, took the lead among state broadcasters in
offering two- minute messages from major- party candi-dates
for governor three times a day for the thirty days
prior to the May 2 primaries on four of its TV stations,
including WRAL- TV. In addition, WBTV- TV in Char-lotte
aired a nightly report on primary campaigns
throughout the month of April.
Campaign 2000 Commentary
The program has joined with WUNC- FM radio in
an effort to bolster the station’s attention to and com-mentary
on this year’s election campaigns. I will be a
regular commentator for the station during its local seg-ments
in the Friday afternoon All Things Considered time
period. ♦
NC DataNet
Odum Institute for Research in Social Science
CB# 3355
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill NC 27599- 3355

North Carolina
DataNet June 2000 Issue # 25
Historical Perspectives on NC Politics
!
Thad Beyle, editor
( beyle@ email. unc. edu)
Jennifer Drolet,
managing editor
( jdrolet@ irss. unc. edu)
!
North Carolina DataNet is
a quarterly newsletter
published by the
Odum Institute
for Research in
Social Science,
University of North Carolina
at Chapel Hill.
!
To join our mailing list, please
contact Thad Beyle, Dept. of
Political Science, CB # 3265,
University of North Carolina,
Chapel Hill, NC, 27599- 3265.
!
850 copies of this public document
were printed at a cost of $ 475.
NC DataNet
June 2000
Issue # 25
Turnout in NC's Gubernatorial Primaries
Ferrel Guillory ( UNC- CH Program on Media, Southern Politics
and Public Life, School of Journalism and Mass Communications)
Despite competitive races in both the Democratic and Republican parties, North
Carolina’s gubernatorial primaries brought forth wails of lament over “ all- time low’’
voter turnout. Indeed, the turnout was very low, but that’s not the whole story. The ac-companying
table “ First Primary Turnout as a Measure of Party Strength” ( page 2)
points to several trends that form a more nearly complete picture.
As North Carolina has become increasingly a state of two- party competition
since 1972, there has been a steady drop in turnout ( i. e., total vote as a percentage of
registered voters), in party primaries for governor and U. S. senator. During much of the
twentieth century, when North Carolina was a one- party state, the battle for the gover-nor’s
mansion took place within the Democratic Party. Turnout was relatively high in
the primaries, because citizens who wanted to help decide who became governor knew
that they had to take part in the Democratic primary. Now, more than twice as many
voters cast ballots in the general election as in party primaries.
In total voters who show up to cast ballots, Democratic Party turnout still exceeds
GOP turnout. But Republican Party participation has expanded since the early ’ 70s.
Republican vote- count hit a peak in 2000, though it still fell more than a quarter of a
million votes below the Democratic total. Democratic primary votes peaked in 1984,
and stabilized in the mid- 500,000 range in the 1990s.
Over the past eight years, North Carolina has had an astounding 1.1 million in-crease
in the raw number of registered voters: registration climbed from 3.8 million in
1992 to 4.9 million in 2000. On the surface, it appears that voter registration out- paced
population growth in the 1990s. What happened? It is that North Carolina has dramati-cally
felt the effects of the 1993 federal law, popularly known as “ motor- voter.’’
This law made it easier for people to register to vote, whether through the de-partment
of motor vehicles, mail- in registration, or social services agencies. What’s
more, the law put limits on the purging of voter rolls. The staff of the State Board of
Elections estimates that the current voter registration total is inflated by 500,000 “ inac-tive’’
voters, including people who have moved away or who have not voted in recent
elections but whose names cannot be purged under the law until 2001. The two- party
vote total in 2000 was just about the same as in 1996, but the turnout percentage was
lower because the total registration figure was significantly larger.
( continued on page 2)
This will be the last issue of
North Carolina DataNet
published by the Odum In-stitute
for Research in Social
Science. See page 14 for
details on our new home. !
North Carolina DataNet ! Number 25 ! June 2000 2
Another factor probably has contributed to lower
turnout percentages in the 1990s than in the ’ 70s and
’ 80s. Presidential contests usually draw more voters to
the polls than statewide races. When the General Assem-bly
decided to schedule all first primaries in May, it had
the effect of putting North Carolina late in the presiden-tial
nominating lineup. With the national nominations
practically decided before North Carolinians have voted
for three consecutive primary elections, presidential races
have not served as a draw to higher turnout in gubernato-rial
and senatorial primaries.
In effect, North Carolina now has two distinct
electorates: 1) a core of partisan voters– Republicans as
well as Democrats– who decide party nominations, and 2)
a much larger general- election group that includes party
loyalists, independents, and swing voters. ♦
NC Party Registration: 1966- 2000
Thad Beyle ( UNC- CH Political Science)
Over the past one- third of a century there have
been some significant shifts in how North Carolina voters
view themselves when registering to vote. ( See “ NC Vot-ers’
Party Registration” table ( below left).
In the mid- 1960s, registered Democrats outnum-bered
registered Republicans by a 4.5 to 1 ratio. Since
then, there has been a consistent decline in the percentage
of voters registered as Democrats, from nearly 80% to
just above 50%. Between 1966 and 1972 the decline av-eraged
2.1 percentage points each two- year period. Be-tween
1972 and 1984 the decline slowed to an average of
only a half a percentage point each two- year period.
Then, since 1984 the decline has averaged about 2.5 per-centage
points each two- year period. By April of this
year, the Democratic- Republican registration ratio was
only 1.5 to 1.
Over the same period, Republican registration has
increased from just below 18% in 1966 to nearly 34%
this past April. But that increase has been at a slower
pace, averaging less than a percentage point gain each
two- year period. The periods of greatest gain were in the
mid 1960s and 1980s. However, since 1996 that growth
has leveled off at about one- third of the registered voters.
One of the most interesting shifts over the period
is the growth of Independent or non- affiliated voters in
the state. At only 2.5% of the registered voters in 1968,
their percentage has risen to 15.4% by this April— a six-fold
increase. For most of the period that growth was by
very small increments each two- year period. But over the
1990s the increments have become greater, rising from
5.5% of the registered voters in 1990 to 15.4% in April
2000.
No wonder both major political parties have
opened up their primaries to these unaffiliated voters. If
you can get them to vote in your party’s primary, you will
probably get their vote in the November election— or so
the theory goes. ♦
First Primary Turnout as a Measure of Party Strength
Democrat Republican Total Votes Reg. Voters % Turnout
1960 643,060- G ------------- 643,060 N/ A N/ A
1972 808,105- G 107,583- G 915,688 2,280,000 40.2
1984 955,799- G 148,574- S 1,104,373 3,271,000 33.8
845,946- S 140,354- G
1992 701,606- G 270,568- S 972,174 3,817,000 25.5
1996 588,926- S 279,610- G 867,536 4,331,000 20.0
1998 540,031- S 265,288- S 705,319 4,740,000 14.9
2000 553,794- G 312,529- G 865,323 4,930,000 17.5
G = Gubernatorial primary S = Senatorial primary Source: NC State Board of Elections
NC Voters' Party Registration:
1966- April 2000
Year % Dem. % Rep. % Ind.
1966 79.7 17.8 ( not avail.)
1968 75.5 21.6 2.5
1970 75.3 21.9 2.5
1972 73.4 22.9 3.7
1974 72.6 23.6 3.8
1976 72.5 23.5 4.0
1978 72.6 23.3 4.1
1980 72.4 23.5 4.1
1982 71.9 24.0 4.1
1984 70.0 25.6 4.4
1986 68.6 27.2 4.2
1988 65.6 29.6 4.9
1990 63.7 30.8 5.5
1992 60.6 31.9 7.5
1994 58.6 32.8 8.7
1996 54.4 33.7 11.9
1998 52.7 33.9 13.4
2000 ( April) 50.6 33.9 15.4
Sources: NC Center for Public Policy Research,
“ The Two Party System in NC,” ( Raleigh, Dec 1987);
NC Free, Sep 1998; and NC State Board of Elections.
North Carolina DataNet ! Number 25 ! June 2000 3
NC Voter Registration & Turnout in General Elections: 1960- 2000
Total NC Total NC NC Turnout Party of Winner
Voting- Age Registered # of % of Reg. % of Voting-
Year Population Voters Voters Voters Age Pop. Pres. Sen. Gov.
1960 2,585,000 N/ A 1,368,556 -- 52.9 D D D
1962 2,647,000 N/ A 813,155 ( senate) -- 30.7 -- D --
1964 2,723,000 N/ A 1,424,983 -- 52.3 D -- D
1966 2,798,000 1,933,763 901,978 46.6 32.2 -- D --
1968 2,921,000 2,077,538 1,587,493 76.4 54.4 D D D
1970 3,043,000 1,945,187 932,948 63.9 30.7 -- -- --
1972 3,541,399 2,357,645 1,518,612 64.4 42.9 R R R
1974 3,725,037 2,279,646 1,020,367 ( senate) 44.8 27.4 -- D --
1976 3,884,477 2,553,717 1,677,906 65.7 43.2 D -- D
1978 4,053,977 2,430,306 1,135,814 ( senate) 46.7 28.0 -- R --
1980 4,222,654 2,774,844 1,855,833 66.9 43.9 R R D
1982 4,416,444 2,674,787 1,330,630 49.7 30.1 -- -- --
1984 4,585,788 3,270,933 2,239,051 68.5 47.4 R R R
1986 4,738,687 3,080,990 1,591,330 ( senate) 51.6 33.6 -- D --
1988 4,887,358 3,432,042 2,134,370 62.2 43.7 R -- R
1990 5,016,747 3,347,635 2,068,904 ( senate) 61.8 41.2 -- R --
1992 5,182,321 3,817,380 2,611,850 68.4 50.4 R R D
1994 5,359,333 3,635,875 1,533,728 42.2 28.6 -- -- --
1996 5,499,000 4,330,657 2,618,326 60.5 47.6 R R D
1998 5,620,000 4,740,272 2,012,143 42.4 35.8 -- D --
2000 ( April) 4,930,319 ?? -- ??
Sources: Michael Barone and Grant Ujifusa, The Almanac of the United States ( Washington, DC: National Journal, 1972- 1998); US
Department of Commerce, Statistical Abstract of the United States ( various years); Federal Elections Commission; Office of the Secre-tary
of State, North Carolina Manual ( Raleigh: Department of State, since 1966); NC State Board of Elections, " General Voter Registra-tion
and Election Statistics,” NC Center for Public Policy Research, North Carolina Focus ( 1989) and " The Two Party System in North
Carolina," ( Raleigh, Dec 1987); and Curtis Gans, Committee for the Study of the American Electorate.
Largest Vote- Getters in Major Statewide Office Races: 1980- 1998
Candidate Status Race Year Total Votes NC Outcome
Jim Hunt incumbent NC Governor 1996 1,436,638 won
Jim Hunt open seat NC Governor 1992 1,368,246 won
Terry Sanford incumbent US Senator 1992 1,194,015 lost
Harvey Gantt challenging inc. US Senator 1996 1,173,875 lost
Jim Hunt incumbent NC Governor 1980 1,143,143 won
Bill Clinton challenging inc. President 1992 1,114,042 lost
Bill Clinton incumbent President 1996 1,107,849 lost
Jim Hunt challenging inc. US Senator 1984 1,070,488 lost
John Edwards challenging inc. US Senator 1998 1,029,237 won
Rufus Edmisten open seat NC Governor 1984 1,011,209 lost
Harvey Gantt challenging inc. US Senator 1990 981,573 lost
Bob Jordan challenging inc. NC Governor 1988 957,687 lost
Michael Dukakis open seat President 1988 890,167 lost
Robert Morgan incumbent US Senator 1980 887,653 lost
Jimmy Carter incumbent President 1980 875,635 lost
Walter Mondale challenging inc. President 1984 824,287 lost
Terry Sanford challenging inc. US Senator 1986 823,662 won
Ronald Reagan incumbent President 1984 1,346,481 won
Jesse Helms incumbent US Senator 1996 1,345,833 won
Lauch Faircloth challenging inc. US Senator 1992 1,297,892 won
George Bush open seat President 1988 1,237,258 won
Bob Dole challenging inc. President 1996 1,225,938 won
Jim Martin incumbent NC Governor 1988 1,222,338 won
Jim Martin open seat NC Governor 1984 1,208,167 won
Jesse Helms incumbent US Senator 1984 1,156,768 won
George Bush incumbent President 1992 1,134,661 won
Jim Gardner open seat NC Governor 1992 1,121,955 lost
Robin Hayes challenging inc. NC Governor 1996 1,097,053 lost
Jesse Helms incumbent US Senator 1990 1,088,331 won
Lauch Faircloth incumbent US Senator 1998 945,943 lost
Ronald Reagan challenging inc. President 1980 915,018 won
John East challenging inc. US Senator 1980 898,064 won
James Broyhill incumbent US Senator 1986 767,668 lost
I. Beverly Lake, Jr. challenging inc. NC Governor 1980 691,449 lost
Source: Almanac of American Politics, 1982- 2000 D e m o c r a t s Re p u b l i c a n s
North Carolina DataNet ! Number 25 ! June 2000 4
Cost of Gubernatorial Elections
Thad Beyle ( UNC- CH Political Science)
The cost of running for office seems to be getting
higher and candidates’ need to raise money is as impor-tant
as their need to gain voting support. Nowhere does
this seem more true than in this state’s gubernatorial
elections since 1968. If we look at how much the candi-dates
reported spending over the last eight gubernatorial
elections, we see an increase from $ 2.2 million in 1968 to
$ 18 million in 1996. ( See “ Total Spending Reported”
column in table below.)
But when the inflation of the dollar over the period
is factored in, a somewhat different picture emerges. To
control for inflation in the expenditures for each of the
eight elections, the actual dollars spent were converted
into May 2000 dollar equivalents ( see “ Converting Cam-paign
Expenditures” box on page 6). Those results are
presented in the table below in the “ Total Spending ( in
2000$ Equivalent)” column. Here is what our analysis
reveals:
♦ The most expensive gubernatorial race over the pe-riod
was in 1972, when ten candidates sought the
governorship and both parties had to go to a second
primary to choose their candidates. Nearly four out
of every five dollars spent was by a Democratic can-didate.
By 51.3% to 48.7% margin, Jim Holshouser
beat Democrat Hargrove “ Skipper” Bowles and be-came
the first Republican to win the governor’s chair
in the twentieth century. The total spent for that race
was $ 33.6 million in 2000$, an average of $ 22.29
for each general election voter!
♦ The second most expensive race was the 1984 to
succeed then two- term Democratic Governor Jim
Hunt. A total of fourteen candidates spent the 2000$
equivalent $ 23.1 million in their quest for the gover-norship.
Again, Democratic candidates spent nearly
four out of every five dollars in the campaign ( in
good part because there were ten Democratic candi-dates
running and they needed a second primary to
select their candidate, Attorney General Rufus Ed-misten).
Congressman Jim Martin cruised through
Cost of Gubernatorial Elections: 1968- 1996
A. Campaign Expenditures per Election Year
Total Spending Total Spending Total # of Cost per Vote
Year Reported ( in 2000$ Equivalent) Votes Cast ( in 2000$)
1968 $ 2,190,136 $ 10,735,961 1,558,308 $ 6.89
1972 $ 8,201,585 $ 33,613,053 1,507,785 $ 22.29
1976 $ 4,428,910 $ 13,340,090 1,658,999 $ 8.04
1980 $ 3,818,190 $ 7,938,025 1,884,543 $ 4.21
1984 $ 14,048,311 $ 23,143,840 2,226,727 $ 10.39
1988 $ 12,513,720 $ 18,109,580 2,180,025 $ 8.31
1992 $ 13,353,473 $ 16,284,723 2,595,184 $ 6.27
1996 $ 18,021,728 $ 20,024,142 2,566,185 $ 7.80
Total $ 142,754,106 16,177,756 $ 8.82
Avg. $ 17,844,263 2,022,220 $ 8.82
B. Type of Election
Contested Primary?
Year Status Candidates Dem. Rep. Margin of Victory Dem $ Rep $
1968 Open Seat 5 Y Y + 6 D 55.7% 44.3%
1972 Open Seat 10 YY YY + 3 R 78.4% 21.6%
1976 Open Seat 9 Y YY + 32 D 90.2% 9.8%
1980 Incumbent 7 Y Y + 25 D 90.1% 9.9%
1984 Open Seat 14 YY Y + 9 R 78.2% 21.8%
1988 Incumbent 6 Y N + 12 R 53.9% 46.1%
1992 Open Seat 9 Y Y + 10 D 54.5% 42.5%
1996 Incumbent 9 N Y + 13 D 50.3% 49.7%
Note: Two “ total spending” figures are listed for each year: “ Total Spending Reported” is the total of the actual
amounts reported by all candidates; “ Total Spending in 2000$” is the reported amount converted to May 2000
dollar equivalents to control for the effect of inflation. ( See box on page 6 for details on conversion method.)
Contested Primary? Listed by party; Y = yes; YY = second primary
Dem $/ Rep $ = percent of total election expenditures spent by Democratic versus Republican candidates.
North Carolina DataNet ! Number 25 ! June 2000 5
his party’s primary and then defeated Edmisten 54%
to 45% to become North Carolina’s second Republi-can
governor in the century. The amount spent was
equal to $ 10.39 per general election voter.
♦ Next is the 1996 election, the third most expensive
race. Democrat Jim Hunt won his fourth term over
Republican Robin Hayes by a 56% to 43% margin.
The nine candidates spent $ 20 million in 2000$ in
this race, or about $ 7.80 per general election vote.
The least expensive race was Hunt’s 1980 second
term victory. The seven candidates only spent $ 7.9
million in 2000$ or $ 4.21 per general election vote.
♦ Looking at how much the candidates spent per vote
cast in the general election, we see that while the
races in 1972 ($ 22.29 per general election voter) and
1984 ($ 10.39) were the priciest, they were followed
by the 1988 race ($ 8.31), the 1976 race ($ 8.04), and
then the 1996 race ($ 7.80). Over the eight- election
period the average amount spent per voter was
$ 8.82. The five races for an open seat ( 1968, 1972,
1976, 1984, 1992) were more expensive on a $ 10.17
cost per voter basis than were the three incumbent
reelection races ( 1980, 1988, 1996) on a $ 6.95 cost
per voter basis.
♦ Note also the increasing parity in candidate spending
between the two parties. From 1972 to 1984, Demo-cratic
candidates considerably outspent their Repub-lican
counterparts. There was a 9 to 1 Democratic
advantage in Jim Hunt’s first two elections ( 1976,
1980) and a 4 to 1 ratio in the 1972 and 1984 elec-tions
as noted above. Since the 1984 election, Re-publican
spending has steadily closed in on Demo-cratic
spending: the margin difference in 1996 was a
mere 0.6%.
Several things stand out in terms of spending by
individual candidates in these eight elections ( see table
below):
♦ In five of the eight races, the winning candidate
spent more than the losing candidate. In 1976 Jim
Hunt outspent his opponent by a 6 to 1 ratio and then
followed that up by outspending his 1980 opponent
by a 8.5 to 1 ratio.
Winners’ and Losers’ Spending in NC Gubernatorial Elections: 1968- 1996
Campaign Spending by Winning Gubernatorial Candidates
Total Spending Total Spending Total # of Cost per Vote
Year Candidate Party Reported ( in 2000$) Votes Cast ( in 2000$)
1968 Bob Scott D $ 623,487 $ 3,056,309 821,233 $ 3.72
1972 Jim Holshouser R $ 962,289 $ 3,943,807 767,470 $ 5.14
1976 Jim Hunt D $ 1,665,913 $ 5,017,810 1,081,293 $ 4.64
1980 Jim Hunt D $ 3,199,316 $ 6,651,385 1,143,145 $ 5.82
1984 Jim Martin R $ 3,051,498 $ 5,027,180 1,208,167 $ 4.16
1988 Jim Martin R $ 5,770,785 $ 8,351,353 1,222,338 $ 6.83
1992 Jim Hunt D $ 6,978,623 $ 8,510,516 1,368,246 $ 6.22
1996 Jim Hunt D $ 9,063,854 $ 10,070,949 1,436,638 $ 7.01
Total $ 50,629,309 9,048,530
Average $ 6,328,664 1,131,066 $ 5.06
Campaign Spending by Losing Gubernatorial Candidates
1968 Jim Gardner R $ 651,351 $ 3,192,897 737,075 $ 4.33
1972 " Skipper" Bowles D $ 4,507,264 $ 18,472,393 729,104 $ 25.34
1976 David Flaherty R $ 277,045 $ 834,473 564,102 $ 1.48
1980 I. Beverly Lake, Jr. R $ 373,113 $ 786,098 691,449 $ 1.14
1984 Rufus Edmisten D $ 2,402,984 $ 3,958,787 1,011,209 $ 3.91
1988 Bob Jordan III D $ 6,738,168 $ 9,751,329 957,687 $ 10.18
1992 Jim Gardner R $ 5,655,013 $ 6,896,357 1,121,955 $ 6.15
1996 Robin Hayes R $ 6,953,236 $ 7,725,818 1,097,053 $ 7.04
Total $ 51,618,152 6,909,634
Average $ 6,452,269 863,704 $ 7.47
Average ( without 1972) $ 4,735,108 882,293 $ 5.36
Note: Two “ total spending” figures are listed for each year: “ Total Spending Reported” is the total of the actual
amounts reported by all candidates; “ Total Spending in 2000$” is the reported amount converted to May 2000
dollar equivalents to control for the effect of inflation. ( See box on page 6 for details on conversion method.)
Source: NC State Board of Elections
North Carolina DataNet ! Number 25 ! June 2000 6
♦ In two of the three exceptions to this winner spend-ing
more than losers pattern, Republican candidates
defeated their opponents in winning the election
( 1972, 1988). The other exception was in 1968 when
Lieutenant Governor Bob Scott bested Congressman
Jim Gardner by a six- point margin despite being
slightly outspent by Gardner.
♦ The most expensive campaign over the eight-election
period was in 1972 when Democratic candi-date
Hargrove “ Skipper” Bowles’ lost to Republican
Jim Holshouser even though spending $ 18.5 million
in 2000$ in the race! His nearly 5 to 1 spending ratio
against Holshouser still saw him lose by 3 percent-age
points. I once asked Terry Sanford why Bowles
lost the 1972 race despite spending so much on his
campaign. His answer was quick and short: “ It
wasn’t his turn!” Bowles had bested Lt. Governor
Pat Taylor in a tough second primary and it was
“ Taylor’s turn” to be governor. So, he lost support
among Democrats in the General Election.
♦ It may seem like an old saw, but every governor
elected since 1972 has been named Jim. And in
1968, the losing candidate was named Jim, and that
same Jim tried to come back in 1992 only to be
bested by another Jim, Hunt that is.
In this current 2000 election year, we may see the
Republican candidates outspend their Democratic coun-terparts
for the first time ever. Will that yield them their
third GOP governor since the turn of the last century?
Could be, and since the race is for an open seat it will be
expensive no matter who wins. And since there are no
Jims in the race, the results are not as easy to predict. ♦
Cost of U. S. Senatorial Elections
Thad Beyle ( UNC- CH Political Science)
The political history of North Carolina’s two U. S.
Senate seats is a tale of contrasts over the past 130 years.
The seat currently occupied by Jesse Helms was
held by a total of eleven individuals between 1872 and
1973, with an average term of service of more than nine
years. Between 1872 and 1946, only four individuals
held this seat, averaging nearly nineteen years of service
each. Then between 1946 and 1973, seven men averaged
under four years of service each.
Among the seat’s notable alumni were Furnifold
Simmons, who helped create and run the first Democratic
political machine over the first quarter of the twentieth
century; UNC System president Frank Porter Graham,
who was appointed by Governor Kerr Scott in 1950 to
fill a vacancy; and Governor Scott himself. By the 1970s,
it had become a seat of fairly rapid turnover.
The John Edwards seat was held by a total of nine
individuals between 1873 and 1975, with an average term
of service of more than eleven years. Between 1932 to
1974, only three men served, for an average of fourteen
years each.
Notables holding this seat included Governor Ze-bulon
Vance in the late nineteenth century; Governors
Cameron Morrison of the 1920s and Clyde Hoey of the
pre- World War II era; and Sam Ervin, the star of the
Senate Watergate hearings. This seat was relatively sta-ble,
especially between the Depression era and the 1970s.
However, since the 1972 and 1974 elections, the
political history of these seats has diverged considerably.
Jesse Helms was elected in 1972, has served since 1973,
and may seek yet another term in 2002. Meanwhile, the
other seat has had six different occupants since “ Senator
Sam” retired in 1974: Robert Morgan ( D), John Porter
East ( R), Jim Broyhill ( R), Terry Sanford ( D), Lauch
Faircloth ( R), and John Edwards ( D).
Despite the relative stability of Helms’ seat and
the great instability of the Edwards revolving door seat, it
is the campaign costs for Helms’ seat that have been by
far the higher of the two ( see “ Cost of US Senate Elec-tions”
table on page 7). The five Helms races have cost
candidates a total of $ 92 million ( in 2000 dollar equiva-lents)
compared to the total of $ 48 million for the five
revolving door races. A single race for the Helms seat has
averaged ( in 2000 dollar equivalents), $ 18.4 million,
while a single race for the revolving door seat has aver-aged
$ 9.7 million ( in 2000 dollar equivalents). Some
analysts argue that the Helms seat is stable precisely be-cause
the Senator has been able to raise and spend so
much money in his campaigns, while there are many rea-sons
for the instability in the revolving door seat.
Converting Campaign Expendi-tures
to May 2000$ Equivalents
Campaign expenditures were converted into May
2000 dollar equivalents in order to compare across
years and control for inflation.
May 2000 dollar equivalents were created from the
Consumer Price Index- Urban, using 1982- 84 as
the base years [= 1.000]. The May 2000 CPI- U in-dex
value was 1.713. To determine each year’s
2000$ value, that year’s CPI- U was divided by the
May 2000 1.713 value. The 1968 CPI- U was .349
on the 1982- 84 base; this divided by the 1.713 May
2000 CPI- U equaled .204. Other years are:
1972 = .418 [. 244] 1974 = .493 [. 288]
1976 = .569 [. 332] 1978 = .652 [. 381]
1980 = .824 [. 481] 1984 = 1.039 [. 607]
1986 = 1.096 [. 640] 1988 = 1.183 [. 691]
1990 = 1.307 [. 763] 1992 = 1.403 [. 819]
1996 = 1.569 [. 920] 1998 = 1.630 [. 952]
North Carolina DataNet ! Number 25 ! June 2000 7
We will have to wait and see whether Helms seeks
to extend his hold in 2002. If he doesn’t run, will the
campaign expenditures be considerably less in that race?
And in 2004, will Edwards be able to break the three-decade
jinx of the revolving door by being reelected? ♦
Cost of US Senate Elections: 1972- 1998
Campaign Expenditures per Election Year
Total Spending Total Spending Total # of Cost per Vote
Year Reported ( in 2000$ Equivalent) Votes Cast ( in $ 2000)
1972 $ 1,124,339 $ 4,607,947 1,472,541 $ 3.13
1974 $ 1,166,728 $ 4,051,139 1,011,393 $ 4.01
1978 $ 8,387,293 $ 22,013,892 1,135,814 $ 19.38
1980 $ 2,124,084 $ 4,415,975 1,785,717 $ 2.47
1984 $ 26,379,483 $ 43,458,785 2,227,256 $ 19.51
1986 $ 9,356,753 $ 14,619,926 1,591,330 $ 9.19
1990 $ 25,572,829 $ 33,516,158 2,069,904 $ 16.19
1992 $ 5,438,482 $ 6,640,393 2,577,891 $ 2.58
1996 $ 22,582,246 $ 24,545,919 2,556,456 $ 9.60
1998 $ 17,707,153 $ 18,599,950 2,012,143 $ 9.24
Total $ 176,470,084 18,440,445 $ 9.58
Type of Election
Contested Primary?
Year Status Dem. Rep. Margin of Victory Dem $ Rep $
1972 Open Seat YY Y + 8 R 43.0% 57.0%
1974 Open Seat Y Y + 26 D 67.0 33.0
1978 Incumbent YY N + 10 R 3.1 96.9
1980 Incumbent N N + 1 R 44.6 55.4
1984 Incumbent Y Y + 4 R 35.9 64.1
1986 Appointee Y Y + 4 D 44.7 55.4
1990 Incumbent YY Y + 6 R 30.5 69.5
1992 Incumbent N Y + 4 R 45.7 54.3
1996 Incumbent Y N + 7 R 35.4 64.6
1998 Incumbent Y N + 4 D 47.1 52.9
Note: Two “ total spending” figures are listed for each year: “ Total Spending Reported” is the total of the actual
amounts reported by all candidates; “ Total Spending in 2000$” is the reported amount converted to May 2000
dollar equivalents to control for the effect of inflation. ( See box on page 6 for details on conversion method.)
Appointee = incumbent had been appointed to the seat, and was now seeking election in his own right
Contested Primary? Listed by party; Y = yes; YY = second primary
Sources: Almanac of American Politics, 1974- 2000; NC State Board of Elections
North Carolina DataNet ! Number 25 ! June 2000 8
Helms/ Hunt Political Money
Thad Beyle ( UNC- CH Political Science)
Over the last three decades, two major political
figures have dominated our state’s politics: Senator Jesse
Helms and Governor Jim Hunt. According to the analysis
in the table below, their initial elections have turned out
to be their least expensive races. Helms spent “ only” $ 2.7
million in his 1972 win and Hunt spent “ only” $ 5 million
in his 1976 win ( in 2000 dollar equivalents). Since those
elections, the cost of winning their elections has in-creased
considerably, especially for Helms.
Not only have they continued to win their elec-tions,
they were involved in the “ Great 1984 Train
Wreck” when they did battle over who would hold
Helms’ U. S. Senate seat come 1985. The 1984 race was a
train wreck in that these two political figures were on the
same track moving at high speed toward each other. Once
Hunt won reelection in 1980 and would be leaving office
in 1985, it was fairly apparent that if he was to go further
in the state’s politics, that U. S. Senate seat was the op-tion.
And an expensive train wreck it was, with the can-didates
spending ( in 2000 dollar equivalents), $ 43.5 mil-lion,
making it probably the most expensive statewide
political race in North Carolina history. To hold on to the
seat, Helms outspent Hunt by a 1.8 to 1 ratio ( in 2000
dollar equivalents, that would be $ 27.9 million to $ 15.6
million).
But Helms has consistently spent more money on
his campaigns than has Hunt. The former spent $ 92 mil-lion
in his five U. S. Senate races compared to the $ 45.6
million Hunt has spent on his four gubernatorial and one
senatorial races— a 2 to 1 ratio. And this was even true in
their 1996 reelection races, where ( in 2000 dollar
equivalents), Helms outspent Hunt $ 16.9 million to $ 9.9
million, or a 1.7 to 1 ratio. ♦
Campaign Spending by Jesse Helms and Jim Hunt
Total Spending Total Spending Total # of Cost per Vote
Year Reported ( in 2000$ Equivalent) Votes Cast ( in 2000$)
Jesse Helms
1972 $ 654,246 $ 2,681,366 795,248 $ 3.37
1978 $ 8,123,205 $ 21,320,748 619,151 $ 34.44
1984 $ 16,917,559 $ 27,870,772 1,156,768 $ 24.09
1990 $ 17,761,579 $ 23,278,609 1,088,331 $ 21.39
1996 $ 14,589,266 $ 16,870,103 1,345,833 $ 12.54
Total $ 92,021,598 5,005,331 $ 18.38
Average per election $ 18,404,319 1,001,006 $ 18.38
Jim Hunt
1976 $ 1,665,913 $ 5,017,810 1,081,293 $ 4.64
1980 $ 3,199,316 $ 6,651,385 1,143,145 $ 5.82
1984* $ 9,461,924 $ 15,588,013 1,070,488 $ 14.56
1992 $ 6,978,623 $ 8,520,907 1,368,246 $ 6.22
1996 $ 9,063,854 $ 9,852,015 1,436,638 $ 7.01
Total $ 45,630,130 6,099,810 $ 7.48
Average per election $ 9,126,026 1,219,962 $ 7.48
Note: Two “ total spending” figures are listed for each year: “ Total Spending Reported” is the actual amount
reported; “ Total Spending in 2000$” is the reported amount converted to May 2000 dollar equivalents to control
for the effect of inflation. ( See box on page 6 for details on conversion method.)
1984* Hunt’s US Senate race. All Helms’ races were for the US Senate.
Sources: Almanac of American Politics, 1974- 2000; NC State Board of Elections
North Carolina DataNet ! Number 25 ! June 2000 9
A State Lottery for NC?
Thad Beyle ( Note: A version of this article appeared
in the June 2, 2000 issue of the Chapel Hill News).
This past spring, the two leading Democratic can-didates
for governor agreed on one major issue: that
North Carolina should establish a state lottery and use the
proceeds for education. Mike Easley and Dennis Wicker
disagreed on exactly what part of education should re-ceive
these funds, but many observers were surprised at
their insistence that the state get into the lottery business.
Why should the lottery suddenly become a major
issue in this year’s gubernatorial race? There are several
reasons: money, media, policy, and politics.
♦ Money: adjoining states have lotteries and they have
been attracting North Carolina money to them. Why
shouldn’t we get a lottery so we keep those funds
here in our state? And we do need more revenues for
the state budget, especially in education.
♦ Media: not only do we see TV programs like Who
Wants to Be a Millionaire? flourishing, but there is
close coverage of people who win major lotteries
across the country. Who wouldn’t be enticed by
pictures of happy new millionaires holding oversized
checks with their winnings?
♦ Policy: Georgia has successfully used lottery receipts
to subsidize college education through its Hope
Scholarships, making the state a bright beacon for
what a well conceived lottery can achieve to help
education within a state. More Georgians are going
on to college and are staying in the state.
♦ Politics: the 1998 gubernatorial elections in Alabama
and South Carolina saw two incumbent anti- gaming
Republican governors unseated by Democratic
challengers who advocated a state lottery. If the is-sue
can win elections, use it.
Of course there are reasons not to get into the lot-tery
business. These include serious religious objections
over the lottery as a moral issue. Others worry about a
lottery encouraging citizens to gamble, creating false
hopes of winning a lot of money, and assisting them in
becoming gambling addicts. Others see a lottery as a not
so hidden tax, and a very regressive tax at that.
What are the prospects of North Carolina adopting
a state lottery? The first step is to get a lottery- supporting
candidate elected as governor. Without a governor in the
lead, a state lottery is dead in the water in this state. The
next step is to get the newly elected legislature to agree
with the new governor’s lottery proposal and put the
proposition out to the public for a referendum vote. State
legislative candidates can expect some serious questions
this year about their stance on a possible state lottery.
How would North Carolinians vote on this propo-sition?
They would support it, according to the series of
seven Carolina Polls taken between 1983 and 1999 which
asked respondents about a state lottery ( see “ Trends in
Lottery Support” table, below). Support has generally
ranged from a 2 to 1 positive ratio to a 4 to 1 positive
ratio, depending on how the question was worded. The
recent fall 1999 Carolina Poll found a 62% support to
31% oppose ratio ( see “ Populations Likely to Support or
Oppose” table, next page).
Of interest here is which populations are most
likely to support or oppose a state lottery. The sub-groups
most likely to support a state lottery included re-spondents
ages 18 to 24 years old, respondents who
never attend church or attend church infrequently, re-spondents
who have never married, respondents in the
coastal region of the state, and respondents at the lowest
end of the income scale. The sub- groups most likely to
oppose a state lottery were respondents who attend
church at least once a week, respondents age 65 or older,
respondents in the mountain region, and respondents at
the highest end of the income scale. The key differences
here revolve around age, income, and religion.
But as samples of adult North Carolinians, these
polls can be misleading come election day. How would a
sample of registered voters differ? More importantly,
Trends in Lottery Support: 1983- 99
Poll Date Question* % Positive % Negative
April 1983 a 59 G 28 B
October 1989 b 66 S 25 O
October 1990 b 61 S 24 O
March 1994 c 72 Y 21 N
March 1997 b 61 S 30 O
March 1998 d 69 F 16 O
October 1999 b 62 S 31 O
* Question wording and response options:
a " Do you think a state lottery would be a good
idea or a bad idea?" G = good, B = bad
b " Do you support or oppose a state lottery for
North Carolina?" S = support, O = oppose
c " Do you think North Carolina lawmakers should
consider starting a lottery to help our schools?"
Y = yes, N = no
d " Some people favor a state lottery to raise reve-nue
for the NC educational system. Other people
oppose a lottery on moral or economic grounds.”
F = favor, O = oppose ( Split sample; see note in
“ Populations Likely to Support or Oppose a NC
Lottery” table, page 10)
Sources: Various years of the Carolina Poll
( http:// www. irss. unc. edu/ irss/ researchdesservices/
researchdeslinks/ cpollreports. htm).
North Carolina DataNet ! Number 25 ! June 2000 10
how would a poll of “ likely voters” differ? My guess is
that the lottery issue is much tighter than it first appears
once we get down to people who would actually have the
interest and take the time to vote. And with the issues and
perspectives involved, it would be a very tough cam-paign.
One last point on how even those in politics can
misread public sentiment from election results. Newly
elected Alabama Governor Don Siegelman took immedi-ate
steps to implement his pro lottery stance. It passed the
state legislature and then went out to the voters for their
concurrence. They didn’t concur, defeating the proposal
with a 55% “ no” vote! This was the same electorate that
had elected the pro state lottery Siegelman only a year
earlier by 58%. What happened? In retrospect, the media
and other analysts now believe what happened in that
election was the voters were more interested in evicting
incumbent Governor Fob James than in getting a state
lottery. So, read those public opinion polls and the votes
in the poll booth very carefully. ♦
Presidential Voting and NC Voters
Christine A. Kelleher and Thad Beyle
( UNC- CH Political Science)
In its February 21, 2000 issue, USA Today re-leased
a ranking of the best to worst U. S. presidents. All
forty- one men who ever held the office were ranked ac-cording
to the quality of their performance by a survey of
fifty- eight presidential historians ( see “ USA Today’s
Presidential Rankings versus NC’s Voting History” table
on page 12). While it is interesting to explore where all
of the different presidents fall in a national historical
framework, an equally interesting question explores how
the voters in North Carolina measured up in voting for
our presidents. Did they support those at the top of the
ranking more than those further down the rankings? Or is
there no distinct pattern of North Carolina voters being
able to discern the potential quality of performance?
The top presidents, ranked in order from one to
ten, were Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Delano Roosevelt,
George Washington, Theodore Roosevelt, Harry S.
Truman, Woodrow Wilson, Thomas Jefferson, John F.
Kennedy, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and Lyndon B. John-son.
There is a clear twentieth century bias in the top ten
ranking, with only three— Lincoln, Washington, and Jef-ferson—
nineteenth century mentions. The top presidents’
service in office generally coincided with major events in
the history of our country: the Revolutionary War, the
creation of the new Union, the Civil War, World War I,
the Great Depression, World War II, the Cold War, and
the Civil Rights era.
The ten top presidents ran in nineteen presidential
elections, winning eighteen of them nationally. They won
a majority of North Carolina’s Electoral College ( EC) 1
votes in twelve ( 63%) of these races. The seven excep-tions
are of interest. Two exceptions were tied to the fact
that North Carolina was not in the Union when the elec-tion
occurred. In 1789 ( George Washington’s first elec-tion),
North Carolina had not yet ratified the Constitu-tion,
having led the fight to have a Bill of Rights attached
before ratifying it. In 1864 ( Lincoln’s second election),
North Carolina was part of the Confederacy, having se-ceded
from the Union. Another exception was in 1860
( Lincoln’s first election), when the Civil War loomed on
the horizon. Two other exceptions were tied to Teddy
Roosevelt, who in 1904 was an “ accidental President”
seeking to win the office in his own right and who in
1912 was a former president trying to regain the office as
the candidate of the Progressive Party. The final two ex-ceptions
were the two Eisenhower elections in the 1950s.
While Ike didn’t carry North Carolina, his two presiden-tial
campaigns had much to do in helping Republicans
become a greater force in the state.
Populations Likely to Support or
Oppose a NC Lottery: Oct 1999
Sub- Groups More Likely to Favor a Lottery
( total sample) 62%
18- 24 years old 81
Never attend church 80
Attend church less than once a month 77
Never married 76
Attend church 1- 3 times a month 72
Live in coastal region 70
Earn less than $ 10,000 per year 69
Sub- Groups More Likely to Oppose a Lottery
( total sample) 31%
Attend church at least once a week 47
65 years or older 45
Live in mountain region 41
Republican 37
Earn $ 80,000 or more a year 37
Note: Question wording was: " Some people favor a
state lottery to raise revenue for the NC educational
system. Other people oppose a lottery on moral or
economic grounds. Do you strongly favor, favor, op-pose,
or strongly oppose a state lottery with the reve-nue
used to support education?" The sample was
split for this question, with half the respondents asked
the question as worded as above and half asked the
question with sentences 1 and 2 reversed. The re-sponses
were not appreciably different and the re-sults
were merged for presentation here. Also, the
“ strongly favor” and “ favor” responses were com-bined,
as were the “ oppose” and “ strongly oppose”
responses.
Source: Fall 1999 Carolina Poll, October 23- 30,
1999, 717 adult NC residents.
North Carolina DataNet ! Number 25 ! June 2000 11
Presidential Elections in NC
First, let’s look at the fifty- three presidential elec-tions
North Carolina held between 1789 and 1996. Over-all,
in the fifty- one presidential elections in which the
state’s EC votes counted, the winner nationally also won
in the state thirty- four times ( 67%). But there have been
four rather distinct patterns over the two centuries in the
results of these elections in North Carolina.
♦ In the eighteen presidential elections in the pre- Civil
War period, the state’s EC vote went to the winning
candidate fourteen times ( 78%). The only presidents
not winning the state’s EC votes during this period
were John Adams ( 1796), John Quincy Adams
( 1824) and James Polk ( 1844). The other election
was the 1789 noted above.
♦ In the ten presidential elections between 1860 and
1900, there was considerable deviation between the
vote in the nation and the vote in the state, as the
Civil War and its aftermath were being felt. Only
four presidents won the state’s EC vote in this pe-riod:
Ulysses S. Grant ( 1868 and 1872) and Grover
Cleveland ( 1884 and 1892). This was a 44% winning
rate, discounting the 1864 election noted above.
♦ In the seventeen presidential elections between the
McKinley election of 1900 and the Johnson election
of 1964, the state was safely Democratic. The only
Republican presidential candidate to carry the state
was Herbert Hoover in 1928. Many of the state’s
Democratic voters just couldn’t buy the Democratic
candidate, New York Governor Al Smith, a Catholic
and a Prohibition- Era “ wet.” The state’s EC vote
went to the winner in ten of these contests, a 59%
winning rate.
♦ In the eight presidential elections since 1968, North
Carolinians’ votes went to the Republican candidate
in all but the 1976 Jimmy Carter victory. North
Carolina’s vote went to the winner in seven of these
eight elections ( 88%).
How Individual Presidents Have Fared in NC
Now, we turn to see how individual presidents
have fared in presidential elections in NC. In this discus-sion,
“ presidents” are individuals who either won the
presidency, ran for reelection, or sought to regain the
office. Election attempts prior to their initial presidential
win ( e. g., Nixon in 1960) are not included. ( See “ Total
Number of Presidential Elections” table, below.)
♦ These forty- one presidents were involved in sixty-three
separate presidential elections and won fifty-three
of them nationally ( 84%). They won the state’s
EC vote in thirty- six of the sixty- three races ( 57%).
♦ The top twenty presidents in the rankings were in-volved
in more presidential elections ( 38) than those
in the bottom half ( 25), a 1.5 to 1 ratio. Part of this
disparity is tied to those presidents in the lower half
who either died in their first and only term ( Garfield,
Harding, W. H. Harrison, Taylor), or as vice presi-dents
succeeded to the presidency and only served
out that term following the death of the elected
president ( Arthur, Filmore, Ford, A. Johnson, Tyler).
♦ The twenty presidents in the top half of the rankings
won thirty- four of their thirty- eight races nationally
( 89%), and won North Carolina’s EC vote in twenty-five
of these races ( 66%).
♦ The twenty- one presidents in the bottom half of the
rankings won nineteen of their twenty- five races na-tionally
( 76%) and won North Carolina’s EC vote in
eleven of these races ( 44%).
♦ Nineteen presidents won every one of their elections
in North Carolina: Buchanan, Bush ( 2 races),
Cleveland ( 3 races), Grant ( 2), W. H. Harrison, Jack-son
( 2), Jefferson ( 2), L. Johnson, Kennedy, Madi-son
( 2), Monroe ( 2), Nixon ( 2), Pierce, Reagan ( 2),
F. Roosevelt ( 4), Taylor, Truman, Washington, Wil-son
( 2)
Total Number of Presidential Elections
USA Today Won- US Lost- US Total #
Quartile Ranking Total W- NC L- NC Total W- NC L- NC of Elections
# 1 through # 10 18 12 4 [ 2]* 1 0 1 19
# 11 through # 20 16 11 5 3 2 1 19
# 21 through # 30 11 5 6 4 0 4 15
# 31 through # 41 8 6 2 2 0 2 10
Total 53 34 17 10 2 8 63
Note: Table includes all presidential elections in which a president was elected, an incumbent president sought
another term, or a former president sought to return to the White House.
Won/ Lost- US: Total = national elections won/ lost; W- NC = NC elections won; L- NC = NC elections lost
* Two elections occurred when NC was not part of the Union ( Washington’s in 1789 and Lincoln’s in 1864).
North Carolina DataNet ! Number 25 ! June 2000 12
USA Today’s Presidential Rankings versus NC’s Voting History
NC Outcome NC Outcome
Rank President Year Won? Vote % Rank President Year Won? Vote %
1 Abraham Lincoln W 1860 N 3% 21 Bill Clinton W 1992 N 43%
W 1864* Not in Union W 1996 N 44%
2 Franklin Roosevelt W 1932 Y 70% 22 Jimmy Carter W 1976 Y 55%
W 1936 Y 73% 1980 N 47%
W 1940 Y 74% 23 Gerald Ford 1974* VP
W 1944 Y 67% 1976 N 44%
3 George Washington W 1789* Not in Union 24 William H. Taft W 1908 N46%
W 1792 Y 12/ 12 EC 1912* N 12%
4 Theodore Roosevelt 1900* VP 25 Richard M. Nixon W 1968* Y 40%
W 1904 N 40% W 1972 Y 70%
1912 N 28% 26 Rutherford Hayes W 1876 N 46%
5 Harry Truman 1944* VP 27 Calvin Coolidge 1920* VP
W 1948 Y 58% W 1924 N 40%
6 Woodrow Wilson W 1912 Y 59% 28 Zachary Taylor W 1848 Y55%
W 1916 Y 58% 29 James Garfield W 1880 N 48%
7 Thomas Jefferson W 1800 Y 58% 30 Martin Van Buren W 1836 Y 53%
W 1804 Y 14/ 14 EC 1840 N 42%
8 John Kennedy W 1960 Y 52% 31 Benjamin Harrison W 1888 N 48%
9 Dwight Eisenhower W 1952 N 46% 1892 N 36%
W 1956 N 49% 32 Chester Arthur 1880* VP
10 Lyndon Johnson 1960* VP 33 Ulysses S. Grant W 1868 Y 53%
W 1964 Y 56% W 1872 Y57%
11 Ronald Reagan W 1980 Y 49% 34 Herbert Hoover W 1928 Y 55%
W 1984 Y 61% 1932 N 29%
12 James Polk W 1844 N 48% 35 Millard Filmore 1852* VP
13 Andrew Jackson W 1828 Y 73% 36 John Tyler 1840* VP
W 1832 Y 85% 37 William H. Harrison W 1840 Y58%
14 James Monroe W 1816 Y 97% 38 Warren Harding W 1920 N43%
W 1820 Y 96% 39 Franklin Pierce W 1852 Y 50.4%
15 William McKinley W 1896 N 47% 40 Andrew Johnson 1865* VP
W 1900 N 46% 41 James Buchanan W 1856* Y 57%
16 John Adams W 1796 N 1/ 24 EC
17 Grover Cleveland W 1884 Y 53%
1888 Y 52%
W 1892 Y 48%
18 James Madison W 1808 Y 48%
W 1812 Y 15/ 15 EC
19 John Q. Adams W 1824 N 36%
1828 N 27%
20 George Bush W 1988 Y 58%
1992 Y 44%
Rank = USA Today ranking ( See “ Presidential Voting” article, page 10)
Year: W = won national election for president
NC Outcome: Won in NC? = Yes/ No; Vote % = % of the NC popular vote ( for elections prior to 1816, the # of
Electoral College votes won out of # possible are listed in lieu of actual returns).
VP = vice- president, succeeded after death of president
* = See the “ Notes for Presidential Rankings Table” ( page 13) for details on particular years.
Sources: Seth B. Hinshaw, North Carolina Election Returns 1790- 1866: Covering the Races for President,
Governor and US House ( Stockport, OH: S. B. Hinshaw, 1992); John L. Chaney, Jr., ed., North Carolina Gov-ernment,
1585- 1974, ( Raleigh: Secretary of State's Office, 1975); CQ's Guide to US Elections, ( Washington,
D. C. CQ Press, 1975), and Venessa Goodman and Jack Betts, Growth of a Two- Party System in North Caro-lina
( Raleigh: North Carolina Center for Public Policy Research, 1987).
North Carolina DataNet ! Number 25 ! June 2000 13
♦ Fifteen presidents never won any of their twenty- two
races in North Carolina: J. Adams, J. Q. Adams ( 2
races), Clinton ( 2), Coolidge, Eisenhower ( 2), Ford,
Garfield, Harding, B. Harrison, Hayes, Lincoln,
McKinley ( 2), Polk, T. Roosevelt ( 2), Taft ( 2).
Summary
The panel of fifty- eight presidential historians
voted last winter on who they thought were the country’s
best and worst presidents. North Carolina voters and
electors have been casting their votes on presidents for
over the past two centuries. There are parallels and de-viations
between these two sets of votes. Not only is it
the president’s job performance while in office that has
counted in these votes, but the times in which they
served: wars, good times and bad times, terms shortened
by death, and being an “ accidental president” serving out
the terms of those who died or left office.
A general conclusion might be that North Carolina
voters are both leaders and followers. They have fol-lowed
national trends as well as deviated from them. Re-gardless
of their political positions, however, they have
undoubtedly demonstrated that their voice is an important
one, revealing much about the nature and course of both
North Carolina as a state as well as the more general no-tions
surrounding American history and tradition.
1Regarding North Carolina’s treatment of Electoral
College ( EC) votes, presidential electors were chosen by the
state legislature in 1792; in the 1796 to 1808 elections, electors
were selected in districts by popular vote; in 1812, electors
were selected by the state legislature; and since 1816, electors
have been selected by statewide popular vote. ♦
Notes for Presidential Rankings Table ( page 12)
1789 NC did not vote, since it had not yet ratified the U. S. Constitution.
1840 John Tyler ran as William Henry Harrison’s vice president in 1840 and succeeded to the presidency
when Harrison died one month after the inauguration. Both major parties spurned any bid by Tyler to
be nominated as their presidential candidate in 1844.
1852 Millard Filmore ran as Zachary Taylor’ vice president in 1848 and succeeded to the presidency follow-ing
Taylor’s death in 1850. Filmore lost his bid for the Whig nomination for president in 1852.
1856 James Buchanan did not seek reelection in 1860, nor would either wing of his splintered party have
considered him as a candidate.
1864 NC did not vote, since it had seceded from the Union.
1865 Andrew Johnson ran as Abraham Lincoln’s vice president in 1864 and succeeded to the presidency
following Lincoln’s assassination in April 1865. Johnson survived an impeachment attempt in 1868, but
the Democratic Party selected New York Governor Horatio Seymour as its candidate.
1880 Chester Arthur ran as James Garfield’s vice president in 1880 and succeeded to the presidency
following Garfield’s assassination in 1881. Declining health prevented Arthur from running in 1884.
1900 Theodore Roosevelt ran as William McKinley’s vice president in 1900 and succeeded to the presidency
following McKinley’s assassination in 1901.
1912 Woodrow Wilson beat Taft and Theodore Roosevelt
1920 Calvin Coolidge ran as Warren Harding’s vice president in 1920 and succeeded to the presidency
following Harding’s death in 1923.
1944 Harry Truman ran as Franklin Roosevelt’s vice president in 1944 and succeeded to the presidency
following Roosevelt’s death in 1945.
1960 Lyndon Johnson ran as John Kennedy’s vice president in 1960 and succeeded to the presidency
following Kennedy’s assassination in 1963.
1968 Nixon defeated Hubert Humphrey ( who received 29% of NC vote) and George Wallace ( 31%).
1974 Gerald Ford was appointed vice president by Richard Nixon after Spiro Agnew resigned in October
1973. Ford succeeded to the presidency following Nixon’s resignation in August 1974.
North Carolina DataNet ! Number 25 ! June 2000 14
NC DataNet’s New Home
Ferrel Guillory ( UNC- CH Program on Media,
Southern Politics and Public Life,
School of Journalism and Mass Communications)
The Program on Southern Politics, Media and
Public Life seeks to enhance the public service mission
of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill by
serving as a vehicle for the university to assert its schol-arly
strength and civic tradition in the region. Its princi-pal
goals are to create on campus a common- ground
meeting place for civic, business, journalistic and politi-cal
leaders and to enrich research and learning opportu-nities
for faculty and students.
It is in keeping with the program’s efforts to make
the work of scholars and their students more accessible
that the program has become the publishing home of
North Carolina DataNet. This is a quarterly newsletter of
government and political data, edited by UNC- CH Politi-cal
Science Professor Thad Beyle, and published, until
now, by the Odom Institute for Research in Social Sci-ence
( IRSS). As a result of recent administrative changes,
the Odum Institute can no longer publish North Carolina
DataNet. Because of the value of this publication— as an
outlet for faculty research and student projects— the Pro-gram
on Southern Politics, Media and Public Life agreed
to become its new publisher. The newsletter’s audience
includes faculty in political science and the humanities,
state legislators, journalists, opinion leaders, and others
with an interest in politics in this state.
In addition to publishing North Carolina DataNet,
the Program on Southern Politics, Media and Public Life
has the following line- up of projects:
Executive Seminars for State Legislators
This project, conducted in collaboration with the
UNC- CH Program on the Humanities and Human Val-ues,
gives lawmakers, with a special emphasis on
emerging leaders, an opportunity to read, think, and talk
about big issues of our time. The second seminar in this
series is scheduled for November 12- 15, 2000, in Chapel
Hill. The first seminar last year attracted eighteen state
legislators from seven states. Presenters included former
Governor William Winter of Mississippi, former Gover-nor
James Holshouser of North Carolina, historians John
Hope Franklin and William Leuchtenburg, UNC- CH
Public Health Dean William Roper, UNC- CH Education
Dean Madeleine Grumet, and former UNC System Presi-dent
William Friday.
Southern Journalists Roundtables
Once a semester, the program gathers a roundtable
of columnists, editorial writers, and state capital corre-spondents,
along with UNC faculty and graduate stu-dents,
to consider emerging and enduring issues in the
Southern states. The fifth roundtable will take place fol-lowing
the 2000 general election.
Election 2000 Project
The Program on Southern Politics, Media and
Public Life joined as a “ state partner’’ to the Alliance for
Better Campaigns, a Pew- funded organization working to
expand candidate- centered discourse on television. The
program has two roles: a) to encourage television stations
in North Carolina to devote five minutes a day to cam-paign
coverage in the thirty days prior to an election, as
recommended by the federal Advisory Commission on
the Public Interest Obligations of Digital Broadcasters;
and b) to monitor TV coverage of the gubernatorial race
in North Carolina. Jim Goodmon, the chief executive of
Capitol Broadcasting Co., who served on the Advisory
Commission, took the lead among state broadcasters in
offering two- minute messages from major- party candi-dates
for governor three times a day for the thirty days
prior to the May 2 primaries on four of its TV stations,
including WRAL- TV. In addition, WBTV- TV in Char-lotte
aired a nightly report on primary campaigns
throughout the month of April.
Campaign 2000 Commentary
The program has joined with WUNC- FM radio in
an effort to bolster the station’s attention to and com-mentary
on this year’s election campaigns. I will be a
regular commentator for the station during its local seg-ments
in the Friday afternoon All Things Considered time
period. ♦
NC DataNet
Odum Institute for Research in Social Science
CB# 3355
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill NC 27599- 3355